Response to "Comment on 'Resolving the 180A° Ambiguity in Solar Vector Magnetic Field Data: Evaluating the Effects of Noise, Spatial Resolution, and Method Assumptions'aEuroparts per thousandaEuroe

We address points recently discussed in Georgoulis (2011, Solar Phys., doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9819-1) in reference to Leka et al. (2009b, Solar Phys. 260, 83). Most importantly, we find that the results of Georgoulis (2011) support a conclusion of Leka et al. (2009b): that limited spatial resolution and the presence of unresolved magnetic structures can challenge ambiguity-resolution algorithms. Moreover, the findings of both Metcalf et al. (2006, Solar Phys. 237, 267) and Leka et al. (2009b) are confirmed in Georgoulis (2011): a method's performance can be diminished when the observed field fails to conform to that method's assumptions. The implication of boundaries in models of solar magnetic structures is discussed; we confirm that the distribution of the field components in the model used in Leka et al. (2009b) is closer to what is observed on the Sun than what is proposed in Georgoulis (2011). It is also shown that method does matter with regards to simulating limited spatial resolution and avoiding an inadvertent introduction of bias. Finally, the assignment of categories to data-analysis algorithms is revisited; we argue that assignments are only useful and elucidating when used appropriately.