Reviewer has chosen not to be Anonymous

Overall Impression: Good

Content:
Technical Quality of the paper: Good
Originality of the paper: Yes
Adequacy of the bibliography: Yes

Presentation:
Adequacy of the abstract: Yes
Introduction: background and motivation: Good
Organization of the paper: Satisfactory
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Good

Detailed Comments:

This revision successfully fills in important gaps while preserving the strengths of the earlier versions. As in my previous review, I recommend acceptance. Below I provide a few suggestions to help clarify and polish aspects of the new material.

p.3 l. 11-16 It's not clear why the notion of constellation needs to be explained, since only the center constellation is used. Explaining other constellations added more noise and was more confusing than helpful – I would recommend to simply say that you use the so-called center constellation, where each panel contains one object. This is nicer and more reader-friendly.
p.6, l.47 What is interference between bindings? Without understanding this, it’s hard to understand why binding helps prevent interference. I'd suggest either not bringing it up, or explaining it more (perhaps one additional sentence).
p.8, L.28, I recommend saying “placeholder c_i” for clarity - if I understood correctly that "c" means any "c_i".
p.8 l. 34-36: “In this context, learning RPM rules…” – this is really important and is ‘the missing piece’ that finally helped me understand this section. I would recommend writing it in a more prominent position.