The reviewers agree on the whole that this work addresses an important problem and that the paper makes sound, well-supported claims. The rebuttal did a good job at clarifying the scope of their work, largely improving the scores of the reviewers. I urge the authors to carefully update the paper to address the reviewers concerns in the final version. Examples of what to improve include: - Description of the "intervention vs counterfactual" distinction. One reviewer recommends: “since it is key for the paper's novelty claim I think this distinction needs a little more explanation, perhaps through a simple example” - Engage with the existing literature on causal inference. - State clearly the assumptions and limitations of the work. I vote to accept.