Junio C Hamano wrote:

Contributors sometimes fail to answer fundamental design or
viability comments from reviewers and submit subsequent rounds
without addressing them.

I think these added sections are helpful. As a newer contributor
browsing topics, I was somewhat surprised (pleasantly) how it seems
like nearly every patch receives some kind of consideration even
if the initial direction of a patch isn't necessarily something the
project ultimately wants to adopt. I also sometimes see these kind
of patches receive implementation-specific feedback in addition
to design feedback, which I think can obscure the fact (especially
for newcomers) that even though one continues to send re-rolls
addressing implementation critique, the series won't make
fundamental progress (or receive continued attention) if design
issues aren't fixed first.

+You would want to be particularly mindful of critiques regarding the
+high-level design or viability of your proposal (e.g., questioning
+whether the feature is worth implementing, or if the chosen approach
+is appropriate).  You want to defend your design decisions on the list
+first, because you do not want to spend too much effort in the
+implementation if the design is not yet solid.

Two small suggestions: open with a direct imperative and replace
"effort in the implementation" with "effort on the implementation".

    [B]e particularly mindful of...
    ... too much effort [on] the implementation...

+Also, make sure that any new version is accompanied by a much clearer
+explanation and justification (in the cover letter, your responses,
+and in the revised commit messages).  Aim to make the reviewers say
+"it is now clear why we may want to do this with the updated version".

Maybe it would help to spell out what the explanation/justification is
for more explicitly (though it may be a bit redundant with the
"meaningful message" blurb):

    Make sure that any new version explains and justifies those
    design decisions more clearly: why the change is worth making,
    what alternatives were considered, and why the chosen approach
    is correct.  Put that justification in the cover letter, your
    responses, and the revised commit messages.  Aim to make the
    reviewers say "it is now clear why we may want to do this with
    the updated version".