Thank you very much for useful comments on the paper draft.
Here, we list comments and answers to draft version 2.

Oscillation paper '04 paper committee
R.Gran,Y.Hayato, K.Kaneyuki,H.Maesaka, T.Nakadaira,M.Yokoyama

    [Abstract]

  1. "In total, 107 events are observed in Super-Kamiokande" -> "In total, 107 events are observed in the 22.5 kton fiducial volume of Super-Kamiokande"
    (Answer) we don't have enough space to add this description.

  2. In total, 107 events are ... -> 107 fully contained muon-like events...
    (Answer) This is not correct. 107 is not for muon-like events but total number of events. For "fully contained", still we don't have enough space.

    [Introduction]

  3. 2nd para: The neutrino beam is 98%pure nu_mu, whose ... -> The neutrino consists to 98% of nu_mu, and its direction ...
    (Answer) We leave it as it is, except for removing "pure".

  4. description of F/N ratio -> need to clarify more (current description does not state even what quantity of ratio we are talking.) Current description is difficult to understand for non-experts.
    (Answer) Two lines are added: "The F/N ratio is the ratio of $\nu_\mu$ flux at the far detector to the flux at the near detector."

    [Data set and beam]

  5. Because 5th par. and 6th par. are both description of data set, it should be one paragraph.
    (Answer) To emphasize the latter data are newly added, we divided it into two paragraphs. We added description to clarify this point.

  6. 6th para: The momentum and angle ... -> "For muons originating from nu_mu interactions in the MRD the muon momentum and angle with respect to the neutrino beam direction are stable within XX% which is smaller than the statistical uncertainty of YYY."

  7. MRD par. can be simpler like "The stability and direction of the neutrino beam is monitored by using neutrino events in the MRD. The beam is confirmed to be stable for the entire experimental period."
    (Answer) We received contradictory comments for this part. After discussing with MRD expert, we conclude we simplify the expression because it is hard to give quantitative description for stability of p_mu and theta_mu.

    [1KT]

  8. "As 1KT uses the same water target as SK, ..." We need to state what we are going to measure before describing the detail. Readers may not understand what we are talking here.
    -> "The total number of neutrino events at SK is estimated by 1KT with the water target, by which the uncertainties in the neutrino cross section cancel. The expected SK event has a 5% uncertainty, of which ....."
    (Answer)We modified the description.

  9. 7th para: The 1KT and SK do NOT use the same water-> As the 1KT and SK both use water of similar purity as a target, the...
    (Answer) We do not think we need to mention purity of water.


    (Answer) Description was added.

  10. page 3 "For the spectrum measurement, the largest contribution to the syst. uncertainty is +2/-3% in the overall scale Of this energy measurement" -> THIS +2/-3% must be explained, how was it estimated
    (Answer) It was explained to the collaboration. We do not have enough space to add it in this letter.

    [SciBar]

  11. "due to overlap with the primary track in one view." ->"due to overlap with the primary track". Non-experts may not understand what is "view" because we do not explain our track reconstruction procedure.
    (Answer) Changed.

    [ND merged fit]

  12. page 3 "From inspection of all bub-sample, ... resonant pion and coherent pion production" -> these terms "resonant and coherent" should be clarified
    (Answer) It is true this is not clear for non-expert, but it is difficult to explain them in this letter.

  13. p.4 1st para: ... , we can not identify () the source ... (remove "which is")
    (Answer) Here, we want to state we cannot identify which of resonant pion or coherent pion is the source. With proposed description, it may be regarded as we do not identify the source at all.

  14. "In this way we estimate the effect on the ND measurements." -> The meaning is not clear.
    (Answer) Removed this sentence.

  15. "we repeat the fit one more time with the E_nu parameters free" ->what are these "E_nu parameters "
    (Answer) Changed "E_nu parameters" to "E_nu spectrum".

    [SK]

  16. the error on F/N (5.1%) and on the normalization (5.1%) should be justified
    (Answer) They were explained to the collaboration.

  17. p.4, right column bottom of para: The differences between K2K and atmospheric neutrino fluxes ... -> be more specific what differences were taken into account or, alternatively list the major contributors
    (Answer) We do not have enough space to add description.

    [osc. analysis]

  18. systematic parameters are constrained and NOT free parameters. "free parameter" -> "fitting parameter"
    (Answer) We improved this paragraph.

  19. 34 parameters in the fit, they should be listed
    (Answer) Actually all of parameters are listed in the paragraph. We don't think numbers of each parameter need to be written here.

  20. p.5, 2nd para: ... at this point is 103.8, ... -> what are uncertainties on 103.8 ?? Include them here.
    (Answer) We don't think it is necessary.

  21. As a result, ... -> The oscillation parameter result is (largely) insensitive to these assumptions.
    (Answer) Changed to: "We also performed an oscillation analysis by eliminating coherent pion production instead of suppressing resonant pions; the end result is the same."

  22. Do we need to show Feldman-Cousins result in this letter Because we don't show any quantitative result, readers cannot judge anything.
    (Answer) We decided not to mention Feldman-Cousins result in this letter.

  23. p.5 right column, last para: ..., we confirm () neutrino oscillationS AS discovered ...
    (Answer) We decided that neutrino oscillation is singular. No change.

    [Table I]

  24. Get column headers and column entries to be centered and headers more spread out. As it is it is hard to read what the various entries are.
    (Answer) We improved the appearance.

  25. How is purity defined ?? Are you saying that, in case of 1KT, of the 53% of detected QE events only 58% are actually QE events ?
    (Answer) It is the fraction of QE events out of all 1-ring mu-like events selected.

    [Table II]

  26. It is not clear what data the lowest energy bin is based on. Can the entries in the lowest energy bin be trusted at all? The thresholds in all of the near detectors are such that we have hardly any information about this energy bin. Some more explanations in the text seem necessary and would be helpful.
    (Answer) For the lowest energy bin, only 1KT has sensitivity. We believe we can trust it as well as other bins, although the statistics in this bin is low and consequently the error is large. We do not think we need additional explanation.

    [Figure 1]

  27. It would be useful to enlarge this figure; especially the right panel is hard to see near q^2=0.
    (Answer) The horizontal axis is expanded to make it easier.

  28. Caption of Fig 1 should underline the fact that there is a deficit at low Q2.
    (Answer) Description was added.

    [Figure 2]

  29. We want to show the angular distribution agrees after correction in low-Q^2 region. In that sense, don't we need more angular distribution? In fact, we corrected low-Q^2 region using SciBar data, so we need other detector to show the validity.
    (Answer) We removed SciBar p_mu and put 1KT theta_mu instead.

  30. Apparently, we cannot put all figures into PRL paper. Finally, we chose figures based on the following reasons: