We thank reviewers: their substantial input will make the paper stronger. We are glad they found it useful, intriguing, with potential for an important impact at CHI and becoming a regular citation. We address key concerns.

Survey:

We agree the survey does not fully work as intended. We think the issue is limited to the section on "General keeping or deleting decisions" (pg.3). We aimed to generalize results from Vitale 2018, but we see the conflation on deleting/decluttering (R2). We will remove this survey section and clarify throughout how decluttering is not only deleting. In fact, our definition of decluttering (see Intro) is broader. In general, the decluttering process consisted of two main actions: selecting and discarding. Discarding often was the same as removing, trashing or deleting. But not always. Participants also reported hiding, re-organizing, archiving, or moving items. For digital items, additional actions were backing up, unsubscribing from, or unfollowing items. As for broad data types, we also think the issue is limited to that same section where we listed recognizable but very different data types (R1). In open-ended responses and interviews, participants were free to discuss any data type relevant to them, with no definition of data coming from us. Mentions of contacts or friends are grounded in participants' words and reflect our holistic approach. R3 questioned the skewed female/millennial sample. We did not see differences based on age/gender. Also, the 7 interviews skew male & older and have overlapping findings. Plus, Cheon at CHI (AC) noted that participants interested in minimalism/decluttering skew female but saw no differences between genders. Our survey likely attracted a similar pool. We will include this limitation and invite future work on age/gender differences.

Archetypes: 

We also worried about potential misuse of the archetypes (AC, R1, R3). This is why we present them as highly contextual. An early draft called them approaches. We switched to archetypes following HCI examples [8, 52] and to tie our work with Khan's [37, pg.10]. But, we understand the worries and embrace R3 suggestions. We can reword them as approaches and use gerunds based on participants' words (collector - collecting; disciplined - minimizing; overwhelmed - accumulating; frugal - limiting; casual - ???). No matter the label, they are useful tools for design and we trust the community to use them wisely. We also see how the process description led to a misunderstanding. The archetypes synthesize the 7 minimalist interviews, 23 interviews in Vitale 2018, and open-ended survey responses, *not* related work (R2). Related work influences *some* of the terms (Sweeten 2018 mentions overwhelmed participants, Watkins 2015 & Kim 2013 collectors, this was a way to incorporate "counter-perspectives" and other disciplines) but the focus is on data we analyzed first-hand. We will better highlight how the synthesis (AC) is based on deductive categories (pg.7) to code behavioral patterns in the 30 interviews and their match with decluttering strategies (based on the 7 minimalist interviews + survey). R2 was also concerned about diversity and generalizability. We note that the 30 interviews vary in age (19-64), occupation, background, ethnicity, gender (18 F, 12 M). 

Related work & analysis:

We will use suggested papers (AC, R2) to streamline the more descriptive analysis sections so that we can expand on identity (R3): Mead's work is a great lens and echoes how participants talked of objects and decluttering as relating to evolving relationships/environments and taking on different attitudes to build their 'self'. "Evolving the self" is, in fact, our key grounded theory category. Suggested papers will also help us better position our work (AC). We see clear links to Marshall's storage predictions & idea that deletion is necessary for "emotionally viable" archival systems, and Williams' mention of possible "underlying archetypes" in PIM (pg.357). Cheon's decluttering stages, Jones' "selection regimes" & Swan's thoughts on "bowls and drawers" resonate with the strategies we identify. All this points to a convergence of ideas from different disciplines. We will emphasize how our key, differentiating contribution is using the analysis to get at generative tools and innovative design directions more than the digital/physical contrast in itself (R2).

Methods:
 
Reviewers liked our mixed-methods approach (R2), but we see it needs clarification. After reading Vitale 2018, we wanted to extend their work with a design-oriented perspective. Since recent data studies cover in more detail the maximalist/"hoarding" perspective (Sweeten 2018 focuses on hoarding, Vitale 2018 has a few minimalists), we used theoretical sampling to focus on minimalists (R3). This is also why we go back to Vitale 2018 for the archetypes: the two datasets are complementary (R3). We saw minimalists as expert users to inspire design (R3) and we talked to them to see specific decluttering strategies (e.g., P7's boxing). Using grounded theory procedures, we did 3 batches of iterative collection-analysis, with initial coding influencing questions in the next interviews. The first few interviews informed the survey questions on decluttering. In the analysis, we started by coding interviews and then included survey responses. We stopped when reaching saturation (R3). This happened early because the interviews were in-depth and built on top of the 23 in Vitale 2018, the process studied specific, and the survey complemented interviews with more examples. We first identified concepts like routine decluttering in the interviews, then refined them using the survey and constant comparison.

We can easily implement these and other suggestions. Using tables in some paragraphs (R1) and cutting part of the survey will give us space for the changes.