We thank the reviewers for their insights, which will clearly improve the paper. We are pleased that the system’s novelty, the problem and our study were recognized and endorsed (R2: “real world problem,” “first in this direction”; R3: “common problem,” “new application for haptic feedback,” “practical use of haptic interaction in a real context”; AC: “interesting innovation backed by a good study”). Primary concerns raised by R1 and to a lesser extent the AC pertain to presentation, not the work itself, and are addressable. We focus on these.
Paper length: R1 & AC question sufficiency for a full CHI paper. We assume the concern is not that the work (live settings, major logistics, massive dataset) was trivial, but rather a wish for more crisp reporting and better conveyance of impact. We will sharpen how our findings pertain to timing awareness broadly and the nature of internal vs. external control (valued by R3). Based on the helpful requests, we will also: remove the battery sentence, further streamline results while adding R1’s detail requests, swap some references (R1), add technical info (R2, R3). This permits little net shortening. 
Lack of quantitative data from controlled conditions: We observed use in real high-stakes presentation settings (valued by R2, R3). This necessitated qualitative methods, producing quantitative data (counts & percentages) that is descriptive but inappropriate for inferential statistical comparison. This is a typical tradeoff in opting for rich, realistic data. We will clarify that we triangulated w/ observed as well as survey-reported data, which may have been unclear (R1 re pg 6). A controlled study to triangulate these results, including one w/o haptics (R2) is a nice next step. Our study of paper sign usage at HS begins to address this (‘Current Practice Highlights’, ‘Presentation Outcome’); we will add more to Future Work.
Presentation of quantitative data: R1 requests the format (HS:0% [x/y], …). We had tried using (x/y) for each % reported (~80 instances), but 8+ pre-reviewers found this overwhelming and preferred the format we used. We could restore, but welcome opinion of AC, R2 & R3 as it will reduce readability. We will replace overlooked instances of “some” etc. with numeric data. To make space, we can remove some items altogether – namely the 4 (of 17) ‘Results’ points supported mainly by quotes (R1). We can instead more briefly mention as important future work.
Omitted questions, read as bias: Unreported question wording made it hard to interpret results (R1). In retrospect we agree (we were trying to save space). We will add question details to ‘Study Components’. The speaker/chair surveys asked ~28-64 questions (audience survey: ~12) designed for triangulation. E.g., the point “Chairs liked how HaNs automatically notified them of the time without the effort to poll…” (raised by R1) was drawn from “What do you like about the haptic reminder device? Check all that apply. Leave blank if none.” HS:93% [13/14], SM:100% [5/5], GR:100% [1/1] of the chairs chose “It automatically notifies me of important time reminders.” We triangulated with responses to “What do you dislike about the haptic reminder device?” and “The haptic reminders allowed me to focus on the presentations without monitoring the time myself” (Likert – strongly dis/agree), as well as related freeform questions.

Imbalance of quotes and comparison to existing methods, read as bias: The number of pro/con quotes used does not match numeric data reported (R1). We will clarify that we drew our conclusion that HaNS was less popular with speakers solely from multiple-choice survey questions. We then chose representative quotes from freeform data for qualitative insight into why participants were pro or con. It might also add trust that R3 observed the system in use at HS, and s/he does not report a concern of bias. However, R1’s suggestion to provide further comparisons to existing methods (already briefly mentioned in ‘Current Practice Highlights’) in our ‘Results – Improvements/Limitations’ may strengthen the point about lower speaker ratings.

Why chair-speaker communication is important (AC): Our results point to the need for a future chair-speaker system to *also* support system-speaker ‘internal’ control needs (e.g., via personalization, ability to practice) to be truly effective. This finding incidentally broadens applicability, since internal timing control is relevant in many situations. A purely system-speaker solution is a different approach with its own problems. The chair-speaker dialogue is currently broken under traditional methods, but remains important for coordinating session timing and flow (pg 1). We will further sharpen this point in ‘Discussion’ and ‘Future Work’.

We will incorporate the many excellent recommendations for improving clarity. We thank R1 for suggestions on interruption literature, much of which we are familiar with, which we will integrate in our revisions.