  We respond to the criticism raised by Courtoy et al., in which the
faithfulness of the NNPDF4.0 sampling is questioned and an under-estimate of
the NNPDF4.0 PDF uncertainties is implied. We list, correct, and clarify in
detail a number of inaccurate or misleading claims that are made in this
Reference. Specifically, we explain and explicitly demonstrate why the central
value of the PDF distribution does not generally coincide with the absolute
minimum of the $\chi^{2}$ to the data. We examine some PDFs that have been
constructed in the above study and claimed to be "good solutions": we show that
similar PDFs are found with the NNPDF methodology, but with very low
probability.
