Index: trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt
===================================================================
--- trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt	(revision 41310)
+++ trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt	(revision 41312)
@@ -518,8 +518,24 @@
 are averaged.
 
+** We agree that the organization of this section could be improved,
+but we disagree a bit with the proposal.  We consider all of these
+analyses to be forced in that the fits are highly constrained by the
+stack priors, with their positions (for PSFs and the lensing anaysis)
+and most of the structural parameters fixed.  In the extended galaxy
+analysis, each of the grid steps is completely forced, just like in
+forced PSF photometry.  By using the term 'forced' to describe this
+process, we would like to make it clear that, for each grid position,
+the parameters (except normalization) are completely constrained.
+
+We have renamed Section 6 as Forced Warp Analysis and split out the
+PSF vs extended source analysis sections as recommended.  We added
+some explanation at the end of the section to explain what we mean by
+'forced'.
+
 - The general description of the section should end with "variant of psphot",
 with the motivation being written such that it applies to both the
 averaged forced photometry on stars and the averaged single-epoch fits
 for galaxies
+** see previous
 
 Sec 6.1 (now 6.2):
@@ -532,10 +548,19 @@
 - The terms "skycell" and "warp image" are first used here without
 definition. Are warp images the same as CAMERA and CHIP?
-**
+** Updated Section 2 to outline the relevant processing stages and
+define 'warp', 'skycell', and 'stack' more cleanly.
 
 - For the forced photometry on single epoch images, is this a joint
 fit for overlapping objects?
-Are overlapping galaxy models subtracted first? "The PSF model is
-fitted..." -> "The amplitude of the PSF model is fitted as the flux..."
+** for the galaxy models, no.  The galaxy model fits are measured on
+each object with the other objects subtracted.  Text added to this
+effect in Section 6.1
+
+Are overlapping galaxy models subtracted first? 
+** yes, see above.
+
+"The PSF model is fitted..." -> "The amplitude of the PSF model is fitted as the flux..."
+** fixed the wording here and also clarified below that we measure
+Kron and aperture fluxes as well.
 
 Sec 6.2 (now 6.3):
@@ -543,7 +568,10 @@
 parameters are an average of all of the single-epoch measurements.
 This should be stated upfront, and then again at the end of the subsection
-clarifying how the PSF systematics are removed. Phrases like
+clarifying how the PSF systematics are removed.
+
+Phrases like
 "interpolated PSF ellipticities" are confusing, when I *think* what's
 being used are "interpolated star ellipticities".
+** reworded this to make the analysis clearer
 
 - Was this lensing code used in any of the GREAT challenge papers,
@@ -554,4 +582,5 @@
 - "ie,," -> "ie,"
 " absoluate" -> "absolute"
+** fixed both
 
 Sec 7:
@@ -561,10 +590,13 @@
 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"
+** fixed
 
 Conclusions: