 0\) There are too many unsupported and/or ambiguous phrases (non exhaustive list: Abstract: \"projection specific\", \"uniquely sampled\", \"correlated well\", \"mechanistic basis for selective triggering of visually guided\"; Introduction\" \"we found strong specificity\"; Results section: \"exclusively part of\"; \"very strong bias\"; \"rather small\"; \"relatively large\"; \"exceptionally broad\"; \"striking selectivity\"; \"had a tendency towards\"; Discussion section: \"clear segregation\", \"strong preference\", \"could be explained by selective sampling of different retinal ganglion cell types\", \"dedicated set of connections\", \"confidently identify\", \"high degree of regularity\" etc). I believe the data is quite clear -- and the wording should reflect the data the authors show, and the appropriate statistical analyses that they apply.  We agree that the text did not reflect the data as accurately as it should