  In this Reply we include the corrections suggested in the Comment [Phys. Rev.
Lett. 131, 169001]. We show that their impact on our results is small, and that
the overall conclusion of the Article [Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 111102] are
robust. As pointed out in the Article, it is crucial to account for the
statistical uncertainty in the ringdown starting time, neglected in most
previous studies. This uncertainty is ~40 times larger than the systematic
shift induced by the software bug mentioned in the Comment. The remaining
discrepancies between the Comment and the Article can be attributed to
additional differences in the setup, notably the sampling rate and the noise
estimation method (in the Article the latter was chosen to mimic the original
methods of [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 111102]). Beyond data analysis
considerations, the physics of the problem cannot be ignored. As shown in
[arXiv:2302.03050], a model consisting of a sum of constant-amplitude overtones
starting at the peak of the waveform introduces uncontrolled systematic
uncertainties in the measurement due to dynamical and strong-field effects.
These theoretical considerations imply that studies based on such models cannot
be interpreted as black hole spectroscopy tests.
