My comments to version 3 of the part II paper, dated January 7, 2025
====================================================================

line 42: add reference after "detector planes" for the Mimosa26 telescope
-> We refer to our previous paper for details and references 

lines 62-63: do not split "B = 0 T" over two lines
-> Added {} (hope it works)

line 91: at low distances -> at low distances in the dN/dx distribution
-> Done

after line 99 in Eq. (1): make in the exponent the 'dot' into a 'central dot'
(so it will come a bit higher)
-> Done  

line 100: (xy) -> (xy) in pixel units
->Done

line 123: response divided -> response, divided
->Done 

line 124: method 1 -> the truncation method
->Done  

lines 125-126: my question before has not been answered yet.
Is it "can be" or "has been"?

-> It is "can be". No scaling correction has been applied.

page 7, Table 2: can you make it fit to within the normal text width,
e.g. by using smaller fonts?

-> This is beacause of the "enlarged font for the reviewer" and comes from elesviers layout fonts.
   One can read it so I leave it like this.

line 163: insert a space in between "in" and "Fig"
->Done

lines 164-167: I have a problem with the relative efficiency level numbers!
You say that the "derivative d" parameter is (about) 0.5 
But then deps/eps being dToT/TOT/d becomes ~ 2*dToT/ToT
while you seem to have taken ~ 0.5*dToT/ToT (+0.9% in line 164 for B=1 and
-0.6% in line 165 for B=0).
If I am right, then these two numbers would have to become: +3.6% and -2.6%

-> The formula was reverted (as I replied by email).  
   It should be d eps/ eps = d d ToT/ToT 
   
page 9, caption, line 1: 5 GeV/c -> 6 GeV/c
->Done 

line 169: burst -> bursts (was not corrected before)
->Done 

line 178: 5 GeV/c -> 6 GeV/c
->Done 

line 202: will be -> has been
-> Reply: the results is not yet presented so "will be"

line 211: the residuals -> the track residuals
->Done 

page 12, Figure 4, caption,line 2: curved -> curve
->Done 

lines 223-224: I still don't understand why the local track values below pi/8
and above 15pi/8 were removed. There is no special geometrical reason why
to do so, as these local track angle regions ar not connected to a special
angular region in the detector
-> This is motivated by statistics. See my LCPTPC presentation https://agenda.linearcollider.org/event/10563/contributions/56091/attachments/40175/63733/PixelTPC_LCTPC_resolution.pdf backup slide  (last) where the number of hits is shown vs phi (circle)

line 225: from which run(s) does the "selected data set" come? Beam energy?
-> run 6969 p = 6 GeV/c
"The resolution in the precision plane as a function of the local track angle will be measured in run 6969 of the $B$ = 1 T data set taken at a beam momentum of 6 GeV/c."

lines 226-228: why  does the "hit resolution" depend on the radius/momentum?
Are you thinking of multiple scattering at the very low momenta?  
Which data were re-weighted as a function of the circle radius?
I have difficulty understanding the details here.

-> Reply: Indeed the multiple scattering increases for low momentum particles (so lower radii).
-> Changed phrase to:
"Because the resolution depends on the radius (due to the mutliple scattering that increases at low momentum)"


line 237: start new SECTION instead of (new)SUBSECTION, so would become
"Section 6"
->Done 

line 244: remove "expected"
->Done 

page 13, Eq. (4): replace 'dots' by 'central dots'
->Done 

line 279: cross check this number 0.6%, and change it if you agree with
my arguments on the "d derivative parameter"
-> Formula corrected (no update on numbers needed).


page 17: make the two URLs in refs [2] and [6] fit the text width, as you
apparently finally managed to do for the part I paper
-> Tried the same trick