Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

The study addresses an interesting and relatively underexplored area by focusing on evening sedentary behaviour, and the intervention is thoughtfully designed using behaviour change theory (COM-B model).

The integration of objective (accelerometry, CGM) and subjective measures, along with the free-living design, are clear strengths that enhance the ecological validity of the work. The manuscript is also well written, clearly structured, and methodologically transparent.

That said, in its current form, the study is primarily a feasibility-oriented pilot investigation, and this limits both the strength of inference and the overall impact of the findings.

Major Considerations

Scope and Study Design
The single-arm pilot design without a control group substantially constrains causal interpretation. While appropriate for feasibility assessment, it does not allow robust conclusions regarding intervention effectiveness on metabolic or physiological outcomes.

Magnitude of Effects
The intervention appears to have had minimal impact on key outcomes, including objectively measured sedentary behaviour, glycaemic metrics, and blood pressure. The modest improvements observed (e.g., sleep disturbance) are of interest but relatively small and not supported by consistent objective changes.

Measurement Consistency
The discrepancies between self-reported, app-based, and accelerometer-derived activity breaks raise important questions regarding adherence and measurement validity. These inconsistencies reduce confidence in the magnitude of behavioural change achieved.

Positioning and Impact
Although the focus on evening behaviour is conceptually interesting, the current study provides preliminary feasibility data rather than definitive or practice-changing evidence. As such, its contribution is primarily methodological and exploratory.

This is a carefully conducted and clearly presented pilot study with strengths in design and theoretical grounding. However, given its exploratory nature, small sample size, lack of control group, and limited impact on key cardiometabolic outcomes, the manuscript may be better suited to a journal focusing on behavioural interventions, feasibility studies, or digital health, rather than a highly selective clinical/metabolic journal.

I commend the authors for addressing an important and understudied topic and for conducting a well-designed pilot study. With further development—particularly through a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial—this line of research has the potential to make a meaningful contribution.

In its current form, however, the manuscript is not fully aligned with the level of impact typically required for this journal.