From 42f025aec095f13d07270109999e88a6b2f2273c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jaron Kent-Dobias <jaron@kent-dobias.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:05:14 +0100
Subject: Small edit.

---
 response.tex | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

(limited to 'response.tex')

diff --git a/response.tex b/response.tex
index 4addddf..ab2107c 100644
--- a/response.tex
+++ b/response.tex
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ in the direction of  highlighting the importance of having a full solution. In p
 we have emphasized that going to the full replica treatment uncovers a phase-space structure that needs to be taken into account, and that is absent in the annealed treatment.
 
 
-We have thus added the paragraph:
+Among other changes, we have added the paragraph:
 
 \begin{quote}
 Having  a full, exact  (`quenched') solution of the generic problem  is not 
@@ -60,11 +60,12 @@ barrier crossing (which barriers?) \footfullcite{Ros_2019_Complexity, Ros_2021_D
 (which end in what kind of  target states?). 
 \end{quote}
 
+
 Both referees find that our paper is clearly written but technical, and
 that its topic of ``the different RSB schemes'' are not suitable for a
 broad audience. This is surprising to the authors, since a quick
 search on Google Scholar reveals several recent PRLs with heavy use of
-RSB schemes. 
+RSB schemes.
 
 We would also like to submit to the referees  that it is somewhat incongruous
 that the solution to a problem that had remained open for 42 years -- during
@@ -79,6 +80,7 @@ than the previous ones.
 
 
 Below, we respond to the referees' comments.
+A comprehensive accounting of the changes to our manuscript can be found appended to this letter.
 
 \begin{quote}
   \begin{center}
-- 
cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2

