[Primexd] Responses to Reviewer Comments and Updated Paper Draft

[Drew Smith]

Dear All,

I attached to this email a few documents for your review:

  *   ‘ReviewerComments.pdf’ – A document listing all comments provided by the reviewers and suggested responses.
  *   ‘UpdatedManuscript.pdf’ – As the title suggests, the updated draft of the paper in two column format.
  *   ‘Difference.pdf’ – A pdf showing the edits made since the initial submission. Please ignore the broken references to figures and citations in this document. The additions are highlighted in blue, and the omissions are in red with a strikethrough.

A few specific places I want to bring your attention to:

  1.  With the added information about the flux measurement from the PS and the TAC run for the acceptance determination, I wonder if the flow of the first two paragraphs is a bit awkward. Specifically, the last sentence of the second paragraph abruptly changes the focus back from the calibration (TAC) runs, and back to the normal experimental conditions. Please let me know if you have suggestions for improvement, or are satisfied with the current iteration.
  2.  In the response to Reviewer #2’s comment about addressing the different observed trend in the cross-section measurement at 9GeV with respect to the NLO calculation (the final comment in the document), I included a plot of the PS acceptance and pointed out that the peak of this triangular shape coincides with this observed effect, and I mentioned that the estimated uncertainties on the PS acceptance shape within this region were slightly enhanced compared to lower energies. I did not include this into the text of the paper, however, as the connection is only speculative. I’m not sure if it is worth including the PS acceptance plot in this response, as it could possibly bring up more questions.
  3.  The final question from reviewer #1 was whether the systematic uncertainties for this measurement matched the expectations for PrimEx-eta. I provided a direct response to their question, but I did not edit the conclusion of the paper itself to provide more details on this subject. If anyone has a specific suggestion for how that could be addressed in the paper, please let me know. Otherwise, I don’t think It’s absolutely necessary to include.

Since these revisions are mostly based on our discussion at last week’s primex meeting, and not everyone is subscribed to the gluex-compton google group, I will wait to reach a consensus within this smaller group before sending the updated responses to the latter.

Best Regards,
Drew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/primexd/attachments/20250715/d28bdb8e/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ReviewerComments.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 118121 bytes
Desc: ReviewerComments.pdf
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/primexd/attachments/20250715/d28bdb8e/attachment-0003.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: UpdatedManuscript.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 714162 bytes
Desc: UpdatedManuscript.pdf
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/primexd/attachments/20250715/d28bdb8e/attachment-0004.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Difference.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 665795 bytes
Desc: Difference.pdf
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/primexd/attachments/20250715/d28bdb8e/attachment-0005.pdf>