Into which category of the CRediT contributor role taxonomy does an (extensive) literature review go? A large part of this one paper of ours is a literature review, that was carried out mostly by one person. In the statement on contributions (which is supposed to follow the CRediT taxonomy, Brand et al., 2015), we would like to honour this effort appropriately.
We however have a hard time figuring out which of the categories is appropriate (see Table 1 in Brand et al. 2015 and/or Allen et al. 2019). It seems to me that none fully encompass literature review. The following ones come closest IMHO:

Formal analysis: Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyse or synthesize study data
Investigation: Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection

To a lesser extent, also these might be appropriate:

Resources: Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools
Data curation: Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later re‐use

What are your opinions? Into which category of the CRediT taxonomy does literature review fit best?
-- edit: @Gaviota provided a link to a better accessible reference to the CRediT taxonomy: https://casrai.org/credit/
Literature review is &quot;formal analysis.&quot;  In particular, it &quot;synthesizes&quot; data.
Exceptions apply for poorly executed literature review.