Dear Simone and co-authors,

Thanks for revising your manscript, taking into account the reviewers' comments. On the whole, I felt that you had addressed the bulk of their comments and I recommend that your paper be published subject to minor revisions.

In particular, Referee #2's comment "In summary, I would like to suggest that the listing of very generic science questions at the end reflects more on what can be expected from such an experimental setup and what the obvious limitations are" has not been addressed. In fact, it seemed unclear to you what the reviewer was suggesting.

Having followed it up with the Referee, in Section 4 (Summary and Conclusions), you propose a number of science questions which could be addressed using your experimental setup. However, the reviewer felt that list was too exhaustive and was not convinced that the experimental layout could deliver everything. As a result, I am asking you to alter Section 4 by including some definitive statements about what results can be realistically achieved/expected and the limitations of the proposed experimental design.

If you seek further clarification, please let me know.

Thanks and regards,
Fiona O'Connor