\documentstyle[gletter,epsfig]{article}
\begin{document}
\letterhead

We thank the referee for the updated comments on our article.  Below
are our point-by-point responses to the {\tt referee's suggestions}.

\begin{verbatim}
Page 5, line 52: the presence of fringing is odd here since normally neither
photometry nor dome flats exhibit fringes. Is this because the dome flats are
being made with a monochromatic source (as suggested later in the paper at
8/19)? If so, it might be worth changing this sentence to say "fringing from
the monochromatic dome-flat illumination..."
\end{verbatim}

The flat-fields shown in the article use the monochromatic flats, but
the flats we use for science analysis are broad-band dome flats.  We
used the monochromatic flats to avoid washing out any effects across
the wide band-pass.  And as the referee notes, the broad-band z- and
y-band flats do not show the fringing effect.  We have changed the
wording to explain the difference between the monochromatic flats used
for this study and the broad-band flats used for science.  We have
also expanded the discussion of the fringing effect somewhat in the
Discussion, noting in addition that the fringing is not relevant to
the our interpretation of the charge diffusion effect.

\begin{verbatim}
10/14: here is says a diagonal pattern "is seen in g and r" - since these
panels are no longer being shown, and also I think the banding is absent from
Fig 3 because it's been high-passed, the reader can't actually "see" this.
You might clarify the wording to keep people from expecting looking for it in
the figure.
\end{verbatim}

We fixed the wording and noted that the high-pass filtering removes
the diagonal banding from the r-band flats.

\begin{verbatim}
12/27: I think you want a comma in "with the strongest systematic tree-ring
effects, to yP1,..."
\end{verbatim}

Fixed.

\begin{verbatim}
12/28: do you mean that smear & astrometry are different from each other, or
that these two are different from the other two?
\end{verbatim}

Fixed the wording to clarify that the trend of the smear is different
from the trend of the astrometry.

\begin{verbatim}
16/8: someone who knows device physics better than me would not ask this
question, but: if the voltage is the integral of the electric field, how can
the higher space charge change the electric field while keeping the same
voltage?
\end{verbatim}

It is true that the integral of the electric field between the two
conductors which define the voltage across the device should be the
same regardless of the dopant density.  However, the detailed
structure of the electric field will be different.  If the dopant adds
space charges in the depleted region, the electric field will be
increased slightly within, and correspondingly reduced slightly
before.  

\epsfig{figure=signature1.ps,width=2.5in,angle=0}

Eugene Magnier \\
Specialist / Astronomer \\
Pan-STARRS IPP Lead \\
IfA / Pan-STARRS \\
University of Hawaii

\end{document}
