The paper was extensively discussed post-rebuttal with points ranging from the concerns about comparisons with SAL. The reviews were split in the end. The AC examined the paper, the reviews, and the rebuttal. The AC is inclined to agree with the reviewers arguing to accept. In particular: there are subtle but important differences with SAL (which the authors should make extremely clear in the paper -- many readers, like the reviewers -- will ask about this); the paper serves as a good contribution in an area of intense interest for the field. The AC urges the authors to include all the information from the rebuttal into the camera ready, including (if possible) addressing the negative comments of R3.