Dear Editors,

First, we would like to thank the the referees for a their thorough and thoughtful comments.  We have tried to incorporate their suggestions, and we believe the manuscript is considerably stronger as a result.  

Before continuing, we note that we  discovered an error of roughly 3%, relative, in our  He-3 polarimetry.  This change has been incorporated into our analysis and is reflected in our reported results in the abstract, text and the tables.

We begin by reviewing the changes we have made to the manuscript, a pdf version of which is attached in which all sentences containing changes have been highlighted in blue (although in many cases the highlighted sentences are quite close to the original).

Before discussing the specific changes in the text, we note changes related to figures and tables.  

Systematic errors:  Both Referees A and C were concerned that we did not explicitly list the systematic errors that contribute to our determination of g_n.   We have therefore included in Table III a list of the contributions of the different systematic errors to G_E^n.  Those that were quite small (such as those from D_t and D_{bkg}) are listed together under "other".  As per the suggestion of Referee A, we have eliminated part of Figure 2 (the part showing the ratio F2d/F2u) to make room for the expanded table, and have modified the text and caption accordingly.

Comparison with Plaster et al.:  Referee A noted, as have we, that there is a significant difference between the highest Q^2 point of Plaster et al. at 1.5 GeV^2 and our lowest Q^2 point at 1.72 GeV^2.  We agree that another data point would be useful.  In fact we have additional data at a lower value of Q^2 that we took during commissioning.  We are analyzing that data and plan to include it in a longer paper that we are preparing for Physical Review C.  None-the-less, we note that the overall statistical consistency of the world data is actually quite good.  In part to illustrate this, we have added a Galster-like fit to the world data and noted its total chi^2.  It is amusing (but not overly relevant) to note that when one makes a Galster-type fit to only the data below 1.5 GeV^2, we get essentially the same fit.  We also believe the Galster-like fit will be useful to those in the field needing a simple parameterization of G_E^n.  We note that we have modified the caption 
 to Figure 1 to include a reference to the fit.

Now concerning the text:

Change 1:  In the first highlighted sentence on page 2,  following Table 1, we have eliminated the parenthetical clause "(~50%)".  With a roughly 1.5% absolute drop in our He-3 polarization, we felt it better not to refer to the polarization as being about 50%.

Change 2: In the second highlighted sentence on page 2, we have increased the quoted error on our target polarimetry from 4% to 4.7%.

Change 3: In response to point #4 of Referee C, in the next highlighted sentence on page 2, we have added the words " ... over the length of the target."  Referee C brought up the point that a lack of uniformity over the target would effect the final result.  Indeed this was taken into account, so we have emphasized that the 1 mrad accuracy applied to the entire target length.

Change 4: In the next sentence (also highlighted) we have removed the words " ... spaced by 6.7cm" in order to save space.

Change 5: in response to point #3 from Referee C, in the last highlighted sentence on page 2, we have explicitly mentioned the empty-target runs used to evaluate this effect, and state that the scraping was negligible.

Change 6: On page 3 In the highlighted sentence " The spectrometer was equipped É" we have 
removed the words "high-segmentation" in order to save space.

Change 7: Next on page 3,in the highlighted sentence "The recoiling nucleons were detected É" we have replaced the word "downstream" by "away" to improved clarity of the text.

Change 8: In response to both points #2 and  #6 from Referee C, we have tried to be more explicit regarding how various calculations were made.   In the nejxt highlighted sentence on page 3, we replace the old sentence with one that now reads "A Monte Carlo of our experiment .... ".  The slightly altered wording makes it easier to subsequently refer back to this Monte Carlo, and, at one point, to distinguish this Monte Carlo from a second Monte Carlo, based on the generalized eikonal approximation (GEA), that was used to look at final state interactions. 

Change 9: In point #7, in a sentence that follows shortly after equation 1, Referee C questioned the meaning of the phrase "appropriately averaged".  As per their suggestion, we have changed it to "statistically-weighted average".

Change 10: In the table 2 we added the line with the uncertainties of $\delta Dp/n$

Change 11: Now we move on to page 4. In point #2, Referee C points out that it is unclear exactly how we determine the dilution D_in and its associated asymmetry A_in.  In the first highlighted sentences on page 4, we have changed the text to make it clear that they were both computed using the aforementioned Monte Carlo, and that the yield of the Monte Carlo was normalized to match our data.   We note that while our acceptance dropped with increasing W, we had plenty of statistics to verify that our Monte Carlo reproduced well the inelastic spectrum as well as the quasi-elastic spectrum.  While our statistics for A_in were limited, they certainly agreed well with our Monte Carlo within errors. 

Change 12: Again, referring to point #2 from Referee C, in the next highlighted sentence, we have shortened "quite close" to simply "close".

Change 13: Returning again to point #6 of Referee C, we have modified the next two highlighted sentences.  We state that we computed D_{p/n} using actual data from three targets (H_2,He-3 and N_2), and have dropped our reference in this case to our Monte Carlo.  We did in fact calculate this quantity using our Monte Carlo as well, and the agreement was excellent.  In the end, however, we chose to use the result from the data itself.  We then go on to explain that A_{ep} was computed using the GEA calculations in a separate Monte Carlo, which we note, took into full account averaging over our acceptance.

Change 14: Referring again the point brought up by both Referees A and C regarding systematic errors, in the next highlighted sentence, we have added the underlined words " ... as presented in Table III".

Change 15: In the first highlighted sentence following Fig. 1, we have removed the words " ...and Q^2 dependence of the neutron data of [6]" in order to save space.

Change 16: The next highlighted sentence has been added to refer to the aforementioned Galster-like fit that has been added to Fig. 1. The caption to Fig. 1 was adjusted.

Change 17: In the next highlighted sentence we have added the words " (for u and d in the proton)" to insure that there is no confusion regarding the nucleon to which F1d and F1u are referenced (the choice is arbitrary, but necessary,  with the assumption of isospin symmetry).

Change 18. Fig.2 was modified to give room for expanded table 3. As noted earlier, we eliminated that half of the figure that displayed F2d/F2u.  The part of the text referring to that portion of the  figure was dropped.

Change 19. Table 3 was expanded by adding the seven columns which provide detailed
account for contributions into systematics uncertainties and the text in the caption.

Finally, we provide below some further discussion of Referee C's points, including referencing
the earlier changes.

Point 3. The one sigma limit for the possible dilution due to the beam scraping 
by the target cell was found to be 0.5-1\%.

Point 4. Elaborating on Change #5. The field was measured along the target and the direction of the field was taken into account during data analysis on an event-by-event basis (thanks to the good vertex resolution along the beam).

Point 5. "The vetos were stated to be 97% efficient." The efficiency of each veto layer was 97% for the high energy protons emitted from the target. It was measured using elastic
scattering from the reaction H(e,e'p) and identification of the high energy proton using the neutron counters.  These veto counters covered the front face of the neutron bars.  Good segmentation of the veto layers (total 194 counters) allowed evaluation of possible "side" effects (where there is no veto). The need for "hermetic" coverage was evaluated during several experimental studies prior to the final experiment.  In contrast to some other (e,e'n) experiments, we increased the threshold in the trigger of the neutron arm from the usual ~2 MeV to 25 MeV, which made the "room" background and its contribution to the counting rate small compared to the flux from the target, which dominated at high value of the trigger threshold.  The contribution of "room" background in final event sample for this experiment is very small as indicated by a time-of-flight spectrum.

Point 6. See the Change #7 and #11.

Point 7. See the Change #9.

Point 8.  " É corrections for nuclear re-scattering effects É" Yes, the GEn values in table #3 take these corrections into account.  A sizable conservative estimate (2% of GEn value or 60% of correction value) was used for the systematic uncertainties in such correction for all three kinematics.

Again, we thank the referees for their many useful comments.

Sincerely,

Bogdan, Gordon, Nilianga and Seamus