The authors have adequately responded to all but one reviewer comment and the manuscript is overall acceptable for publication, provided further consideration of reviewer #1's comment 5). The authors state in Section ”9 Uncertainty analysis" (lines 348-349): ”It is therefore crucial to estimate and report parameter uncertainties. Reporting fitted parameters and distance distributions extracted from experimental data without accompanying uncertainty estimates is meaningless." The answer: ”Most people, even scientists, can interpret visual information more easily than numbers." to question 5) of reviewer #1 doesn't match this claim. Error estimation by the reader's subjective perception is in striking contrast to: ”For example, r0 = (3.2±0.1) nm supports much more confident conclusions about r0 than r0 = (3.2 ± 0.9) nm." (lines 347-348).

I still think the modified answers to reviewer 1 comment 5 and the related changes to the text don't address the point raised. In most applications of PDS distances of interest (r_oi) are reported as final results and a confidence analysis for such r_oi, i.e. r_oi +/- \Delta r_oi have to be reported. The confidence analysis provided gives for the model-free case \Delta_P(r_i), i.e. a value orthogonal to \Delta r_i. The translation of \Delta_P(r_i) into \Delta r_oi should be discussed and also for the \Delta\theta_i for parametric models.