First review round: 6.3 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good).
It seems that the manuscript needs improved clarity as the editor and reviewers were confused about some fundamental aspects of the methods and results. Furthermore, an editor misinterpreted a figure and drew false conclusions about inconsistency in our data. As for the two reviewer reports, one reviewer recommended acceptance after minor revision, and another reviewer recommended more robust revisions which were all doable. Some of the revisions this reviewer categorized as "major" were actually editorial remarks about how to structure the order of paragraphs. Neither of the reviewers outright suggested rejection in their comments. At least all the comments were thorough and justified from the editors' and reviewers' points of view. Also the decision was a relatively quick turnaround.