  We deconstruct and address a comment to Carroll et al. [Phys Rev Lett 126,
063902 (2021)] (PRL) that has been posted on arXiv appearing as two versions
[arXiv:2106.15242v1] and [arXiv:2106.15242v2]. This comment claimed that a term
in the model presented in the PRL had been incorrectly omitted and that, hence,
the laser threshold predicted by the model in the PRL is unattainable. We show
that the term in question was correctly neglected because it represents
collective effects that are not observable in the devices modelled in the PRL.
Moreover, even if this term were to be included, the laser threshold would
still be present, contrary to what was claimed in the comment. We conclude that
the model presented in PRL is correct and that its results are innovative and
of wide application in laser physics and quantum optics.
