Dear contact authors,

We find the word count argument used too easy. Especially, when the statistical
treatment is still not clear in spite of the many words spent on it.

It would be good to promise the reader a "follow up paper" which you mention
in your answer.

- Replace "confidence level (CL) of the fit" by "p-value of the fit"
in lines 47, 62, 64, 77, 120, and 153.
We do not refer to a confidence region here.

A: “p-value of the fit” is a recent jargon for “fit confidence level” which used to appear in almost every paper.
I prefer to use “p-value” only in the context of hypothesis rejection 
and “confidence level” in the context of goodness-of-fit measures

C2A: We do not agree with that answer.

- Figure 1:
- Describe in the caption the superimposed curve as the distribution we expect
without resonances in phi'pi. The present text is not suited for in a caption.

A: This would be an incorrect statement. Exotic psi’pi resonances do contribute to K* angular moments.

C2A: It was our first impression of this figure. We had no idea why this figure is shown first,
apart from indicating a region of deviation from what is to be expected. 
Please, try to explain a figure in simple words.

- Make the vertical scale arbitrary by using a scale between 0 and 1.

A: We could do it, but is it really necessary? Arbitrary chosen scale factors often affect “efficiency corrected” plots.

C2A: Normally an efficiency correction should bring the measured values closer to the ideal
measurement. With an arbitrary scale you give up any relation to an ideal measurement of 3 fb-1.
This seems to be a contradiction.
With 10000 as an efficiency corrected yield the question arises "how arbitrary"?
Can one still reproduce this figure?

Figure 2:

Replace "the fit variables (black data points)" by
"(top) the reconstructed invariant mass squared and (bottom) the
angles theta_phi' and phi".

A: Sorry, but captions are included in the word count towards the PRL limit.

C2A : We do not agree. The black data points are no fit variables.
And it is good custom the mention the variable along the horizontal axis 
explicitly.

- Line 83:
Replace "suggests neglecting D-wave decays" by
"suggests that D-wave decays can be neglected".

A: You are making it more verbal; we are against the PRL word count limit.

C2A: This a joke about 3 words extra!
 
Line 105:
Remove "even without considering systematic uncertainties".
This is not how "consistent" should be understood.

A: I disagree. Systematic errors are usually folded in when evaluating consistency.

C2A: That is what we mean. We should not write "consistent with the Belle results, even 
without considering systematic uncertainties".
And we do gain 5 words here!

- Figure 3:
If space for further explanations is a problem in PRL, then this
trivial figure is a luxury which we could move to the added material.

A: I am sorry but I strongly disagree. We would be asking for a lot of trouble talking 
about significances as large as 25.7 sigma without showing the simulations it comes from. 
Discussion of various methods of significance calculation in spin analysis will become 
totally confusing without the figure. 
Definite JP determination is an important accomplishment of our work which deserves 
a dedicated figure.

C2A: This is the perfect place to refer to the follow up paper and just mention 
ruling out other spin assignments at more than 9.7 etc. sigma. 
As you mention 25.7 sigma, I think it is incorrect to quote that as a value for the
significance as for such large values the validity of the Gaussian distribution
should be questioned. It is just a deviation of 25.7 sigma from a probability distribution
that is "assumed" to be a gaussian.

- Figure 4:
Add the corresponding mass (or mass2) range of the 6 data points.

A: This can be calculated from the information we have provided in the text. 
We cannot afford your suggestion because of the length limitation.

C2A: Indeed it is in the text.

- Figure 5:
- Change "candidates" to "number of counts" at the axis.

A: I prefer to stick to “candidates”.

C2A: With "candidates" at the axis the question rises "candidates for what"?
Z resonances, all K*, B-decay events?  

- Replace "data (black points) for m2phi'pi in" by
"(black points) reconstructed m2phi'pi for B0 to phi'piK+ data with".

A: You are adding many more words.

- Replace "veto region" by "excluded".

A: “veto” was used to refer to this region in Belle and BaBar papers.

C2A: Withdrawn. Our mistake was due the region given in GeV2 and the
masses in GeV, suggesting an additional exclusion inside the 1.0 - 1.8 region.

Best regards,
  Tjeerd Ketel