diff --git a/Response_Letter/Response_Letter.tex b/Response_Letter/Response_Letter.tex
index 91d8485..ea1c8ad 100644
--- a/Response_Letter/Response_Letter.tex
+++ b/Response_Letter/Response_Letter.tex
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \documentclass[10pt]{letter}
-\usepackage{UPS_letterhead,xcolor,mhchem,mathpazo,ragged2e,hyperref}
+\usepackage{UPS_letterhead,xcolor,mhchem,ragged2e,hyperref}
 \newcommand{\alert}[1]{\textcolor{red}{#1}}
 \definecolor{darkgreen}{HTML}{009900}
 
@@ -57,12 +57,19 @@ I recommend this manuscript for publication after the minor points addressed:}
 	\alert{We thank the reviewer for mentioning this interesting fact. We were not aware of this.
 	Actually, this is already the case in SF-dBSE; the eigenvalues differences in the denominator of the second of Eq. 30 are $GW$ quasiparticle energies.
 	The $GW$ superscripts were missing in the original manuscript and they have been added. 
-	We have performed SF-dBSE@$G_0W_0$ calculations replacing the $GW$ quasiparticle energies by the HF energies in the denominator of Eq. (30) but it does not seem to alter much the results in the case of Be.}
+	We have performed SF-dBSE@$G_0W_0$ calculations replacing the $GW$ quasiparticle energies by the HF orbital energies in the denominator of Eq. (30) but it does not seem to alter much the results in the case of Be.}
 	
 	\item 
 	{Figure 2: Could the authors discuss the kink in G0W0/SF-BSE and G0W0/SF-dBSE (in supporting) appearing at around 1.2 Angstroms between $1\Sigma_g^+$ and $1\Sigma_u^+$. It is really puzzling. Is it due to the lack of self consistency in the G0W0 approximation? What does GW/SF-BSE gives in this case?}
 	\\
-	\alert{bla bla bla}
+	\alert{The kink in the SF-BSE@$G_0W_0$ and SF-dBSE/$G_0W_0$ curves for \ce{H2} are due to the appearance of the symmetry-broken UHF solution.
+	Indeed, $R = 1.2 \AA$ corresponds to the location of the well-known Coulson-Fischer point.
+	Note that, as mentioned in our manuscript, all the calculations are performed with a UHF reference (even the ones based on a closed-shell singlet reference).
+	Of course, if one relies solely on the RHF solution, this kink disappears. it would be, nonetheless, inconsistent with the rest of the paper.
+	The appearance of this kink is now discussed in the revised version of the manuscript.
+	At the ev$GW$ level, this kink would certainly still exist as one does not self-consistently optimised the orbitals in this case.
+	However, it would likely disappear at the qs$GW$ level but it remains to be confirmed (work is currently being done in this direction).
+	Unfortunately, it is extremely tedious to converge (partially) self-consistent $GW$ calculation with such large basis set (cc-pVQZ) for reasons discussed elsewhere [see, for example, V\'eril et al. JCTC 14, 5220 (2018)].}
 	
 \end{itemize}