I am generally happy with the authors response to my questions. I only have a few minor suggestions.
(a) In section 2.2, the sentence beginning 'A second \sigma^- polarised beam (so called "repumper)...' is confusing as this beam doesn't deplete the F=2 manifold but rather keeps everything in the F=2. Also it appears in the middle of the paragraph and just gets in the way of the flow of the argument. I would move it to a footnote (as suggested by one of the other referees) or at least to the end of the paragraph where you could say 'Note that an sigma polarised repumper beam tuned to the ... transition (see fig 3) is also required to prevent population of the F=1 groundstate.'
(b) Both the power and intensity of the polariser beam are now given in Fig 6 but not in Fig 5 - it would be good to have in both places to make it clear that the same power was used in both cases.
(c) On p13, it would be helpful to replace the sentence beginning 'At \delta_p = 4.9MHz, where cooling is only marginally less efficient,...' with 'At \delta_p = 4.9MHz, where cooling is only marginally less efficient than the optimum detuning of \delta_p = 6.9MHz ,...'. The previous thing that was referred to was the \delta_p = 0.9MHz case which as I understand it is not what is being compared to.