Dear Authors,
thank you very much for your extensive responses to the reviewer comments. I am confident that you can implement well to make this paper acceptable for publication. I think it would be good if you would actually include as much of the material from your response in the revised manuscript as possible, in particular the results from the repetition of the Ringeisen experiments. And if you could more clearly outline what the focus and main conclusions of the paper really are.
Thank you and we are looking forward to your revisions which we will send out for review again.
Best regards
Christian Haas

Dear Authors,
we have received another review of your manuscript. It attests that the manuscript has improved but that some aspects should still be addressed. Please could you implement the following, or clearly state in the manuscript or on your rebuttal why you won't:
stronger recognition that the central discrepancy (90° vs. ~45° intersection angles) is not resolved;
the statement on grid alignment should be moderated as the results show correlation, not causation.
Inclusion of explanatory sketches or schematics, particularly where you introduce your own methodology, to make the paper more accessible.
Thank you and best regards
Christian

Hi Jean-Francois,
thank you for the revisions, I think the paper is publishable now. However, note that the new figure A2 does not show, at least for me. I also wonder if some of your negative replies (in the sense that you do not agree with the reviewer) shouldn't be explicitly included in the text as well, to make your view clear to everyone? This is your last chance to do so.
Thanks again
Christian