We are delighted at the range of issues raised in the commentaries. The breadth and scope of these serve to make obvious the need for an effective evidence base across languages if we are to optimize the teaching of reading. Our psycholinguistic grain size theory clearly did not pay sufficient attention to the role of morphology in decoding, nor to fluency. The commentaries also highlight the need for considering in more depth the intimate links between phonological and morphological development. All issues raised were highly germane to generating an adequate theoretical framework for the cross-language collection of relevant evidence in different countries.