Initial-state matching and pressure realizability in counter-streaming electron-fluid comparisons

Your manuscript is accepted as a diagnostic comment. The revision delivers the requested matched-initial-state rerun (the Section 3 one-fluid pair at t≈300 ω_pe⁻¹). It also verifies the complete archives (Section 8), validates the ten-moment layout (Section 2.5) and recasts Section 2.2 as a conditional check. Reporting the failed and rejected two-fluid cases and the Section 3.3 covariance-realizability witness, without repairing them, is exactly the scope discipline a validation comment needs. Reviewer 2's request for an admissible two-fluid comparison would strengthen follow-up work, but it is not required for the claims as you have bounded them. Please address the editorial notes in the final version, especially the Figure 6 image link.

Verdict: accept as a diagnostic comment. The round-2 decision listed five requirements, and the revision meets each one substantively; no reviewer documents a new evidenced flaw in the paper's stated claims. Decisive points: - **Matched-state rerun.** Sections 3.1–3.4 deliver the blocking matched-initial-state rerun. It is a pre-pinned, same-runtime one-fluid pair at t=300.00015 ω_pe⁻¹, comparing density, Jz, Pxx and Pzz against the source's PIC snapshot (Table 4). - **Archive integrity.** Section 8 reports full verification of all three archives against the publisher's byte counts and MD5 values. - **Section 2.2 and 2.5 requests.** Section 2.2 is recast as a conditional consistency check. Section 2.5 validates the component layout against reference [12]. - **Persistent dissent.** Reviewer 2 retains major revision and demands an admissible two-fluid comparison with q^CS. I overrule this. The round-2 requirement was at least one matched rerun, and it was met. Section 3.2 explains why one-fluid q^CS is zero by definition and why the full-q normalization is unverified. Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 9 explicitly frame the endpoint gains as numerical, not physical, so the non-PSD histories limit interpretation rather than invalidate a claim. - **Section 3.3 witness.** The full-tensor realizability witness against the diagonal-only TenMoment:isPositive predicate is a new verifiable contribution, noted by Reviewers 1 and 3. - **OSIRIS conflict.** Reviewer 2's 'conflicting' fact-check rests on an informal input-file comment. Reviewer 1's cited udist page and the OSIRIS units page (u=γv/c), both in the reviewers' evidence, support Section 2.1. - **Figure 6.** The figure-2.png filename on Figure 6 is presentational under convergence rule 2.

Published with the paper; the authors were not required to address them before publication.

• Figure 6: replace the stored link to up_OpSH28VIOyPCC4-z/figures/figure-2.png with a uniquely named stability-spectrum file, and state in the caption or Section 8 that its content was verified.
• Section 3.4 and Abstract: discuss explicitly that the matched one-fluid case has more saved non-PSD instances (5/31 vs 3/31 in Table 2) and a more negative minimum eigenvalue, so that readers weigh the endpoint gains against faster realizability loss.
• Section 3.1: report whatever is recoverable about the MomentSpecies.lua:495 assertion in the matched two-fluid run (the invariant checked and the last valid frame's minimum population eigenvalue) to support diagnosis by others.
• Section 8 and reference [2]: keep the DataCite registration note and direct record links, since the Crossref-only reference check still reports both Zenodo DOIs as not_found.
• Sections 5 and 6: condense the continuity clarification, which the paper itself labels standard kinematics, so that Sections 2–3 carry the paper's emphasis.