Parameter for distractor prominence

[HirokiFujita1126]

According to Engelmann et al. (2019), the target-match condition starts causing facilitatory interference when distractor prominence is larger than 1.1–1.2 (pp. 74).
Van Dyke and McElree (2011) found inhibitory interference when the distractor was in the subject position like (1) by which Engelmann et al. assumed that the subject position itself causes a medium increase in prominence, which still leads to inhibitory interference in the target-match condition, as the distractor activation is still lower than the target activation (the target-match condition is assumed to cause facilitatory interference when the distractor is both the subject and the discourse topic; Cunnings & Felser, 2013; Sturt; 2003).

(1) The judge who had declared that the witness/the motion was inappropriate realized that the attorney in the case compromised

However, when testing their new model, Engelmann et al. set the parameter for medium distractor prominence as {−1, −0.9, ..., 2} (pp. 93).
I wonder if it would make more sense to set the parameter for medium distractor prominence up to 1.1–1.2, given distractor prominence values larger than 1.1–1.2 indicate facilitatory interference in the target-match condition, which is against the assumption of Engelmann et al.

As shown in Engelmann et al., the estimated value of medium distractor prominence for subject-verb agreement is 1.7 (pp. 95)
This predicts facilitatory interference in the target-match condition (pp. 96), which makes it difficult to assume that medium distractor prominence for subject-verb agreement causes inhibitory interference though…

This makes me wonder what values should be used for future studies testing the Engelmann et al. model. For example, suppose I have conducted an experiment like (2) and found facilitatory interference (i.e., shorter reading times in (2a) than (2b)).

(2a) The boy who the girl saw was going to the library.
(2b) The boy who the girls saw was going to the library.

As stated, Engelmann et al. argue that the distractor in the subject position causes inhibitory interference, so the result is inconsistent with the Engelmann et al. model. However, when fitting the Engelmann et al. model to the data, if assuming distractor prominence = 1.7, the model would fit the data well.
I wonder if the readers of this book would wonder whether values like {−1, −0.9, ..., 2} or 1.7 should be used for medium distractor prominence or {−1, −0.9, ..., 1.1/1.2} is more appropriate when testing the Engelmann et al. model

I am sorry if what I am saying here does not make sense.