## 1 Introduction  
Seismic design codes generally receive significant attention, resulting in their periodic revision. These updates incorporate not only lessons learned from recent destructive earthquakes but also scientific advances related to new structural typologies, novel materials, and passive or active protection systems, among others [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. The seismic design factors applied to the various structural systems currently in use are, in most cases, determined arbitrarily, relying on expert judgment to assign practical values for design purposes. Several studies have addressed this issue extensively, and interested readers are referred to those works [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. Following the publication of numerous scientific papers on the calibration and validation of seismic coefficients--and, in particular, the release of FEMA P695 [14], which systematically introduced a methodology consistent with prevailing analysis and design practices--various initiatives have emerged, aiming to propose seismic design factors in an objective manner. Although FEMA P695 was originally developed to support the determination of seismic design factors for new structural systems or those composed of innovative materials, the methodology has since been widely applied to the assessment and/or validation of design factors for structures designed in accordance with international standards. Notable studies that have employed the FEMA P695 methodology to determine seismic design factors include the work by [PERSON] et al. [15], who evaluated the behavior factor \(q\) (equivalent to the response reduction factor \(R\) in American codes) of cold-formed steel (CFS) strap-braced stud walls. [PERSON] et al. [16] used it to derive design factors for steel buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs), while [PERSON] and [PERSON] [17] quantified performance factors for ribbed bracing systems using simplified archetypes. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [18] investigated the performance factors of dual-steel SMF-SCBF systems, and [PERSON] et al. [19] studied those of quarter-elliptic-braced steel moment frames (QEB-MFs), also using 2D models. More recently, [PERSON] et al. [20] examined combined SCBF-SMF steel building systems. The FEMA P695 methodology has also been used for the collapse assessment of specific structural configurations. For instance, [PERSON] et al. [21] analyzed the collapse margin of steel structures subjected to near-fault ground motions. [PERSON] et al. [22] studied CFS shear walls with gypsum board sheathing designed according to the Eurocodes, aiming to advance performance-based design. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [23] applied the methodology to self-centering shear walls to evaluate their collapse capacity. Other relevant case studies include that of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [24], who applied the methodology to obtain design factors for buildings combining reinforced concrete and steel components modeled in 2D. Another study on mixed structures was presented by [PERSON] et al. [25]. The methodology has even been used to calculate seismic design factors for irregular structural configurations, such as in the study by [PERSON] et al. [26]. [PERSON] et al. [27] explored hybrid buildings with reinforced concrete columns and steel beams using planar archetypes and FEMA P695. With regard to the structural system addressed in this study, [PERSON] et al. [28] assessed the performance factors of reinforced concrete shear walls with boundary elements using simplified 3D models. This typology had previously been studied by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [29] using FEMA P695, with a focus on the influence of the wall aspect ratio. [PERSON] et al. [30] also conducted research on rigid buildings, but in their case, they examined concrete-filled steel plate structures to determine the corresponding seismic design factors. Recent studies have proposed novel refinements to seismic analysis methodologies that align with the goals of this research.