- In the introduction we say that the measurements at 2.76, 7 and 8 TeV have to be interpolated (line 29 and table 1) but then we only deal with 2.76 and 7 TeV. Probably 8TeV doesn't add any information but I think a sentence should be added.

This is true only for ALICE, indeed LHCb uses 8 TeV too. We may add a sentence at the beginning of the ALICE-related sections to say that we just have 7 TeV results.

Indeed, for LHCb the 8 TeV point is useful and used

- on table 2. I would advise to just write in the table the third value for LO-CEM/CTEQ6L even if it is identical to the second, and omit the explainig sentence in the table. It simplifies the reading of the table which is inevitably "heavy" to digest.

Let's repeat the line, but better keeping the "warning". Otherwise people may believe to a typo in the table (two rows with the same numbers).

The table anyhow needs to be revised. Apart from that, I personally would prefer not to duplicate a line.

- lines 68 -74. This explanation on the error and the systematic error is also quite intricate at least to me. I don't know if there is a way to simplify...

Re-reading it, it does not seem too intricate. However, if Michael has ideas that would be fine, of course.

we will try to make it a bit easier

- Table 4. The sentence "interpolated cross-section......5.02 TeV" is what? The title of the table? I find it rather ugly and anyway I would change it to " Interpolated values of sigma(J/psi)(mub) at sqrt(s)=5.02TeV"

We are fine with this proposal.

agreed

A few minor editorial corrections: - line 2 The study... -> The analysis

OK

- line 10 and/or final state -> and final states

This we would keep as it is, since and/or refers to the possibility of coherent energy loss adopted by some theorists

I also think that "and/or" is a compact way of indicating different mechanisms. Alternatively one could expand the text.

- line 35 omit Generally

OK

fine

- table 1 caption, last sentence. The first error is statistical, the second one is systematic.

OK

OK

- line 68 linear- -> linear

OK

OK

- line 169 Figure6-> Figure 6

OK

There is a space - but maybe a too small one

-- EnricoScomparin - 14 Nov 2013