The paper, the reviews, the author response and the ensuing discussion were all taken into consideration. Two of three reviewers considered the work marginally above the acceptance threshold and one considered it marginally below the threshold. Concerns, after taking the author response into account, included missing (stronger) baselines, stability in practice, and claims about working with multiparameter persistence and it offering more information. On the other hand, the topic and smart aspects of the technical solution were considered interesting, and able to inspire future research. Overall the paper may be of sufficient quality to be presented at NeurIPS.