We thank the referees for their encouraging comments on our proposal. We are further encouraged by the fact that the few concerns can be straightforwardly allayed. We now address the factual inaccuracies that form the basis of these concerns. ---- Concerning: "However, it should be stressed that the non-incremental aspect of this proposal is not entirely ensured. The fact is that this proposal basically aims at implementing the ***already existing AZX concept*** in (more or less) practical systems. This gives some degree of predictability to the proposal but at the same time does not demonstrate a fundamental breakthrough which would constitute a major advantage with respect to other proposals in this call." Let us emphasise that, contrary to this claim, AZX has not been developed yet. More precisely, while the ZX-calculus, which is aimed at theoretical work, is a mature system, defining a practical language for quantum computing like AZX -- including the automation, hardware-driven optimisation, and other advanced features we propose -- will require significant technical work. The tasks described in WP3 and WP4 will produce a substantial amount of new theory and techniques with broad application in other areas of computer science. Elsewhere in the report, the proposal is described as "transformational", "radical", "novel and not incremental", and "truly significant". ---- "it is not entirely clear from what is described in the proposal what the dissemination tasks will bring to future programmers. Will they use the outcome of this project as a black box of which they know nothing about [?]" Just as with existing compilers for classical programs, the AZX toolchain could be used as black box, but knowledge of the compiler's inner workings may assist in writing better programs. However the more immediate consumers of the AZX outputs will be: (i) programming language implementors who can use AZX to add hardware support to their languages, and dually (ii) hardware designers who can use AZX to provide a ready-made software layer. To achieve dissemination in these communities our consortium and board of external advisors includes leading quantum programming language designers (Valiron, Staton, Selinger), hardware teams (Delft, Zurich, Vienna), as well as the NQIT project and private companies (ATOS-Bull, Rigetti). Further, our commitment to open source software and publicly documented file formats and APIs (See T1.4 and T4.5) ensures that the wider community may adapt and use our work as they see fit. ---- "A concern is that this approach is counter to convention (the gate approach) and this will inevitably slow down the impact" We note that AZX is not intended to replace the gate approach, but rather provide a strict superset quantum gate language. Users more comfortable with the gate model can continue to use it and still see benefits from this project. Indeed, quite early in the project, Milestone 1 will provide a circuit to circuit pipeline. However we believe that the extra power and flexibility provided by the AZX tensor language will provide compelling reasons to take advantage of the full language. ---- "It is not clear how the results of this proposal can percolate correctly to industry if this is to become a standard in quantum computing." Formal standardisation is premature, although the implementation and its public APIs (T1.4, T4.5) may serve as a de facto standard. Our proposal offers a direct channels to industry via our partner ATOS/Bull and the existing infrastructure established by the NQIT project. As noted elsewhere in the reviews "Direct links with NQIT are highly beneficial to the project", citing their expertise in ion traps. NQIT also has 20+ industrial partners and hosts a biannual Industry Forum, where AZX results will be presented (see p.12 of proposal). The three workshops planned during the project will also be aimed at attracting members of industry (see p.11 of proposal). ---- "It is unclear that there would be much in the way of side-benefits" The project entails the integration of many distinct novel contributions, which will be beneficial in their own right. For example: our open test suite and benchmarks (T1.4) will useful to the broader quantum computing community; our circuit-to-circuit optimiser (Milestone 1) can be exploited by anyone using the gate model of quantum computation; due to the embedding of circuits in AZX, our HPC simulator (T2.3) will provide benefits to those that do not have access to quantum devices; Tasks T2.4 and T2.5 will develop greater understanding of the characteristics of superconducting and ion trap qubits; T4.3 and T4.4 develop effective methods for programming quantum architectures, which are beneficial even without the AZX platform; all the tasks of WP3 involve developing new techniques for working with diagrammatic languages, a widely used paradigm in computer science and other disciplines. OLD STUFF, NOTES: Our proposal does have one significant channel to industry, via the NQIT project. The NQIT architecture is one which we propose to target (T2.5), and for which it is reasonable to expect that AZX will be particularly well-suited. The strong connections between our consortium and the NQIT project will allow us to ensure that our work in this direction will be directly relevant and useful to NQIT's internal work on architecture and compiler technology. Conversely, the advantage to the NQIT project in using the tools which we develop will directly motivate NQIT to present of those same tools as an API. In particular, the AZX tools will be presented in conjunction with NQIT’s internal work in its biannual Industry Days, in planned Application Workshops, and in ad hoc interactions with specific industrial partners who are interested in quantum technology. (Augment or supplement the above with remarks about NQIT interaction with standard bodies?? Dom says:) In terms of dissemination through NQIT, they are plugged into the various industry standards bodies (I knew turning up to that boring standards session at the first NQIT conference would come in handy). I can dig out my notes this evening and put together some names of agencies, people, and the types of pathways to standardisation that were discussed in the context of NQIT software, which we could use. The Oxford site of the consortium has recently developed a separate industry partnership with Cambridge Quantum Computing (CQC), who have developed an interest in ZX as a technology for simplification of quantum circuits. This is one of the central aims of the AZX toolset, and it can be expected that the partnership with CQC will both enhance the productivity of the project as well as a direct way in which our results will be disseminated to industry. (Are similar remarks possible for Delft, Rigetti??) This positions AZX technology in a symbiotic role with specific industrial users, and (one or more??) major quantum technology projects with an international reach in their interactions with industry.