Most of the reviewers were excited about this work, and I'm pleased to recommend it for publication. In the revision, please address all promised changes in the rebuttals and/or requested in the reviews. The outlier R1 has some valid points about the exposition as well as discomfort with the length of the appendix (it's true this is difficult to review in the NeurIPS environment), but these are not reasons to reject the work. That said, the authors of this paper are encouraged to take R1's expository suggestions seriously in their revision to make the work as approachable as possible.