Dear Dr. Massmann,
Thanks very much for your thoughtful responses to all referee comments. All referees recommend publication after revision, and since the proposed revision is quite substantial, I will likely give the referees another opportunity for a final check of the revised manuscript.

Regarding your reference to Kowalski (2018), I agree that there is nothing wrong about citing the paper even though it was not accepted for final publication. However, the way the paper is referred to on P2L2 and also in your proposed revision (responce to Referee #3) does not make it sufficiently clear that this is already disproven literature. The author may be misled to believe that Kowalski (2018) is an accepted element of the scientific literature on the topic, and that the present manuscript may be the first one to disprove its conjectures. Please make sufficiently clear in the manuscript that Kowalski et al. (2018) is a rejected paper and explain why you find it useful nevertheless.

Regarding your silent correction of Appendix C of Paw U et al. (2000), I would appreciate it if in your paper you could point out the error, and explain why and how you corrected for it. Otherwise, a lot of readers may get confused whether your paper or Paw U et al. contain an error. I have been caught out on similar silent corrections myself and I lost time unnecessarily.

Dear Dr. Massman,
Thanks again for a very thorough revision. All referees recommend publication, but Dr. Kowalski still raised a few issues that should be addressed before publication. Most of them are quite technical, but Point 4 might indeed change the results a bit and I commend Dr. Kowalski for spotting this inconsistency. Could you address these last comments and revise the manuscript accordingly? Thank you.

Best regards,
Stan

Dear Dr. Massman,

Thank you for your detailed discussion of Dr. Kowalski's helpful comments and for your adaptations to the document. I agree that Eqs. 20 and 21 cannot be reconciled and it is important to point the readers to this fact and to possible reasons for it. The manuscript will undergo copy-editing before publication, so the spaces between units should become consistent with journal conventions then.

Best regards,
Stan