-----------------------------------------------------------
1st reviewer:
To answer the last question first.
Yes it should be accepted as a Hall A collaboration.
Yes, my concerns have been very well met.
-----------------------------------------------------------
2nd reviewer:
On rereading the new proposals I find the authors attitudes
towards the issues of higher twist and whether there is
existing evidence of physics beyond the standard model
puzzling.

In the authors response, it is said that the PVDIS HT
is connected to the NuTeV higher twist corrections
through a model. Given recent results from two photon
"imaginary" polarization proposals, one should probably
guess this means the PAC will think there is no meaningful 
connection. Thus this argument is a waste of time.

On evidence for physics beyond the standard model,
there is already plenty of evidence, such as the
cosmological constant, dark energy, and dark matter.
(All of which I think are much more mysterious
and beyond standard model than neutrino oscillations.)
I don't understand why the authors continue to focus
on a few of the outlier measurements in a large and,
as near as I can tell, statistically distributed
set of electroweak results. It seems irrational.

The basic argument for this experiment as a standard model
test appears to be that it is a much better measurement
of 2C_2u - C_2d than previous ones, and that it is sensitive
to new physics in a different way than other
observables. This is a nice general argument, but the
limits set on new physics discussed in section 1.6
appear to indicate limits that do not much improve upon
existing ones, particularly since they are 1 sigma,
not 3 sigma limits, so there appears to be no specific
model in which the present measurement really makes a
difference. This is hardly the compelling argument
one would like to see given to the PAC, and indeed
this makes me fear the likely judgement of the PAC.

I do not see how the PAC can give this proposal better than 
B+ priority with the current unclear impact of this measurement.
I also fail to see how it can be more than conditionally
approved, given that it requires upgrades to the
DAQ and beam polarimetry that are still in the
development stages.

Despite all this criticism, it does seem to me that the 
experiment is cheap, compared to other standard model 
tests around, and that indeed several such measurements 
will help to better set limits on beyond-standard-model 
physics, so it should be supported by Hall A.

As a picky point, why is section 3.12 called
"Error budget"? Are these misstakes the proposers
are planning to make?
-------------------------------------------------------------