I enjoyed reading this manuscript. I think the author(s) did a great job in presenting a very concise and readable manuscript given a study with numerous limitations. Among the major limitations I enumerate here:
(i) the sample quality (community sample);
(ii) ad hoc innovation in used measurements (i.e., changing the scale from an original dichotomous measures to 13-point Likert scale, using one-item, two-item, and three-item measurements for some analyses, with unknown effects over the internal consistency of these measurements),
(iii) the unknown impact of including these measurements among other tasks (in fact, this is a hidden longitudinal study as predictive variables have been measure at T1 and the criterion/dependent variable - the discounting task at T2); maybe more features of BPD are linked to temporal discontinuity, but time intervals between the measures diminuate the magnitude of the association;
(iv) the absence of pre-registration of these hypotheses.

The author(s) did a good job in making explicitly these shortcomings, labelling their work as an explorative one. In terms of transparency, and replicability, this study will benefit tremendously by a cross-validation sample, but of course such an effort requires additional resources.

Therefore, the easiest way to overcome most of these limitations would be to collect data from a second sample, which could transform this explorative approach into a confirmative one.

Assuming this is not doable because of limited resources, I will start with highlighting the positive aspects of this manuscript, and than I will turn out to specific requirements to be discussed / tackled, to improve the current version of the manuscript.

The topic addressed in this manuscript is examining the relationship between BPD and temporal discounting (as well as which BPD features, including rejection sensitivity), in a community sample. Looking at individual differences in temporal/delay discounting is an important topic for understanding behavioral phenomena related to personality types/traits and it is line with a recent call to action made by De Houwer et al. (2023) in a special issue of Collabra: Psychology, advocating for the relevance of linking personality to learning phenomena.

Likewise, the increased readability of the manuscript and its clear structure is another strength of this work. I also appreciate the pre-registration of some aspects (such as the protocol for data quality check, as an a priori decision to eliminate some participants from the analysis based on low quality data.

Besides the recommendation to obtain a cross-validation sample, which is the single and most useful measure to address some major limitations (single-point measurement, better feature measures, registered hypotheses and analyses), and change the nature of this work from an explorative to a confirmative endeavour, please find below some punctual suggestions that could be implemented in the current version of the manuscript, as a single-study paper.

Page 1. A think the title should incorporate the exploratory nature of this work, maybe by adding at the end something such: (i) An exploratory study or (ii) Preliminary findings.

Page 2 and 3. The authors mention that the investigation was conducted on a subclinical sample. Please correct it. A community / convenience sample is not equal to a subclinical sample. It is a non-clinical sample.

Page 12. Please insert a table with descriptive statistics (i.e., means, SD, range min-max), for each relevant measure, including a correlation table. Likewise, where appropriate, please include some info on the internal consistency of the mini-scales.
Descriptive data will provide some clues on the number/percentage of people manifesting any of these BPD symptoms. Relying on means from two-item and three-item data will provide us clues on the quality of these measurements (used to see which feature of BPD is linked to temporal discounting).
In my opinion, relying on single-item, two-item, or three-item measures of various BPD criteria led to (un)satisfactory measures that could explain some of the null findings. In the defense of this argument you can notice that fear of abandonment (single-item measure) did not correlate with temporal discounting, but a 9-item scale focusing on rejection sensitivity (a similar construct tightly linked to fear of abandonment) was significantly correlated with temporal discounting. This apparently inconsistent result could be a matter of limited construct validity as it usually the case of a single-item measure or a problem of accuracy (reliability), (see also the discussion wether the SCID item tapping on impulsivity reflects the entire construct of impulsivity). Likewise, relying on low reliability measures (typically the case for a two -item or three-item scales) will affect that.
It is important, from a transparency perspective, to have a clue on: (i) the quality of measurements; (ii) if there are people in this sample manifesting above-scale average BPD symptoms (using 6 as the middle of the scale) or to least to describe the mean level of these BPD symptoms for this sample.

Page 22 or around. Introduce explicitly as a limitation when discussing impulsivity results, that the current manuscript used a single-item measure of impulsivity which could impact the construct validity of impulsivity as not all nuances of an impulsivity construct could be contained in a single-item.

Page 23. Discuss the incongruent findings between rejection sensitivity and fear of abandonment. Maybe using similar explanation as above.

Page 23/24. Before conclusion, an explicit call for a cross-validation study (with registered hypotheses and analysis, single-point measurement, and better measurements for each BPD features), to highlight the preliminary nature of these findings.

Final aspect: I have received access to the database/materials registered on OSF, but still was not able to access the pre-registration link.