Index: trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt
===================================================================
--- trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt	(revision 41307)
+++ trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt	(revision 41310)
@@ -490,4 +490,11 @@
 arcsec seeing) images. Have they been included in the image stack, and
 the assumption made that the stacked seeing is always better than that?
+
+** We do not exclude images with seeing larger than either 1.5 or 2.0
+   arcseconds, but if the images are larger than the convolution
+   target, they are not convolved.  We have added text to explain this
+   and pointed out that stacks with FWHM larger than these limits will
+   suffer seeing effects in the smaller apertures.
+
 - It's convenient that the aperture fluxes are made with the same choice
 of radii as used in SDSS. However, it should be noted here that the
@@ -495,7 +502,9 @@
 convolution. Since the median SDSS seeing is ~1.5 arcsec, those may
 be expected to compare well with the 1.5-arcsec convolved PS1 aperture fluxes.
+** good point, we noted this in the text
 
 Sec 5.5:
 - State the seeing of these simulated images.
+** added
 
 Sec 6 and 6.1:
@@ -508,4 +517,5 @@
 are made on all of the single-epoch images, and then those measurements
 are averaged.
+
 - The general description of the section should end with "variant of psphot",
 with the motivation being written such that it applies to both the
@@ -518,6 +528,10 @@
 for the mathematical appropriateness of image stacking, a nice recent
 discussion would be Zackay & Ofek 2016.
+****
+
 - The terms "skycell" and "warp image" are first used here without
 definition. Are warp images the same as CAMERA and CHIP?
+**
+
 - For the forced photometry on single epoch images, is this a joint
 fit for overlapping objects?
@@ -532,7 +546,10 @@
 "interpolated PSF ellipticities" are confusing, when I *think* what's
 being used are "interpolated star ellipticities".
+
 - Was this lensing code used in any of the GREAT challenge papers,
 and if not, which code would it be most similar to?
+
 - Define "KSB" and "HFK" references in-line
+
 - "ie,," -> "ie,"
 " absoluate" -> "absolute"
@@ -544,7 +561,9 @@
 If these questions are covered in other Pan-STARRS papers, please reference
 them here.
+
 - A basic piece of information that should be given is whether the differencing
 is performed on pairs of images, or single (warp) images compared to
 image stacks.
+
 - "model from is" -> "model is"
 
@@ -569,4 +588,5 @@
 - "window" in the figure text should be "\sigma_w" to be consistent
 with the caption and text.
+
 - For Figures 2,5,6, please do the mathematical calisthenics of stating
 how these instrumental magnitudes can be read as magnitudes above the