I don't understand the motivation for the way H1 is formulated as "issues are more expensive to fix later in the lifecycle." I've never heard this and don't believe it. This seems obviously false, because it's not expensive to fix a coding error - if you catch it right away. I believe that Beck's figure 1 is about handling changing requirements in a non-agile process. In a lot of the up-front motivation, you don't clearly state what phase delay means exactly. I found H1 to be quite a surprise when I finally knew what you meant.
[x] add thanks to anonymous reviewers
[x] “(2006 and 2014)” is not immediately clear, specify better that you refer to the period between 2006 and 2014.
[x] the time to resolve an issue does not increase – generally abstract is better in plain text
[x] Section 2.2: “stating the the fact…”
[x] Section 2.3: “the second survey was conducted Program Committee members …” (perhaps with Program Committee members?)
[x] Last line above Section 4.2: “actually fixing them. we use the second approach in our analysis” (we should be capitalized)
[x] Section 4.3: “ has been been mentoring...”
[x] Section 5.1: “first hypothesis (H1) that that the..”
[x] Above Section 6: “(i.e. much less than we would expect from Figure 1. – Close parentheses
[x] the part where they discussed that the non-existence of
Phase Delay is not exclusively due to TSP approach could have been
moved to the Validity section. T
[x] The verb in the second sentence in
the Abstract section is missing.
[x] In page 7, the 1st and 2nd point under the heading: "For these TSP
projects, the principles followed are:" are basically same.
[x] the connection between your work and Meyer's claim about OO programs and debugging time is not clear.
[x] "notable example" -> do you mean "notable exception"?
[x] I don't see how the "guiding principles" of TSP listed are "relevant" to the description of the study.
[x] "which product" -> "which the product"
[x] I don't understand the point of the "Distinguishing Project Characteristics" section/paragraph.