In a revision, is it essential to address editor comments, even if they misrepresent a reviewer comment? We recently received a "revision" notification for a submission in a good journal. The reviewers raised a few valid concerns. In addition to the reviews, the notification e-mail also contained a summary by the editor. The editor asked us to make a change which was not explicitly requested by any of the reviewers, but could be read as a wrong interpretation of one particular reviewer comment. Performing the change would take a substantial amount of work.

Would we hurt our chances if we didn't address the editor's summary, including the comment?
Your best bet here is probably to contact the editor requesting clarification on what’s being requested before you put in a lot of work. Perhaps something along these lines:


  Dear $EDITOR, we welcome the reviewers’ feedback and would like to obtain clarification on the recommended changes. Reviewer 1 has suggested $THING1 but the summary proposes $THING2, which is different because of $REASONS and would be a broader change. Could you please clarify whether these broader changes are required, or if it will be sufficient for us to address $THING1?


Or, if you really don't want to do $THING2:


  Dear $EDITOR, we welcome the reviewers’ feedback and would like to obtain clarification on the recommended changes. Reviewer 1 has suggested $THING1 but the summary proposes $THING2, which is different because of $REASONS. It is not feasible for us to do $THING2 because of the amount of extra time this would involve. Would it be acceptable for us to submit a revision that addresses $THING1 without the broader changes implied by $THING2?