#AB: regarding your correction in Eq.(5), it may be important to write "letter x"
#AB: instead if "normal x" . Maybe we need to express our concern that they ignored
#AB: this correction in the previous round.
%MJK ok.

p. 4, right, definition of B_rms: I couldn't see the correction.  Isn't the present version of proof3.pdf correct?

The left bracket < is of different size as right bracket, and the font of B is different from other B's and u's.
This correction should be in, at least I see it ok.

#AB: yes, your correction is clear, but you don't need to write "seem",
#AB: because they definitely have a roman B instead of math B.
%MJK Made more clear.

Eq. (27): nominator -> enumerator in the correction comment

numerator 

Eq. (C1), first line: only one \langle at beginning;


Do not understand this comment, but I make a correction that I think you mean.
Why does the numbering start from C2 in the paper.tex?

#AB: I think you mean the same and the correction in the pdf reads fine.
%MJK Discussed with Matthias, now ok.

Eq. (C3): first ( as tall as ) in front of d\tau'

Correction marked.

%MR: still pending:
Eq. (C1): write the correction comment as "after I_2 in the next line
          add ' "(" behind Sx should be as tall as ")" behind I_1 in next line '
%MJK Done.