My main concerns are addressed to potential additional components of the system. The description of derivation of the absolute magnitude and spectral type of the co-moving companion is not clear. Which relation was used? Why only the (H-K) colour was used? I have checked 2MASS data, and the (J-K) colour suggests a significantly later spectral type. I think that in this case, the object may have different colours than a main sequence star because it is very young (25-45 Myr). > In fact the other color indices gave other results. > We add this in Sect. XX, page XX. > I used E. Mamajek relations http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~emamajek/EEM_dwarf_UBVIJHK_colors_Teff.txt I suggest waiting for Gaia DR2 parallaxes and estimating spectral type trough more sophisticated SED analysis of archival photometry. > we added GAIA DR2 results for both A & B components (in a new Table 4). > I have no expirience with SED and I have limited time and dead lines now. I hope we can leave this point for future analysis. In my opinion third potential spectroscopical component is not real. BD-00 2862 is a known ROSAT source (also should be mention in Introduction, e.g. Szczygiel et al. 2008, Acta Astron., 58, 405-418), and this anomaly of CCF could be caused by chromospheric activity. The shape of hydrogen lines should be carefully checked. Another explanation of this problem could be the poor quality of these spectra (or other technical issues). What is the S/N of these spectra? > we added paragraph on page 7 It is very annoying that authors do not use rules of text edition, commonly accepted in astronomy. Physical variables and names of filters should be written using italic. For example, spectral types should be presented in such manner G5\,V, velocity $m s^{-1}$ not $\frac{m}{s}$ > corrected spectral features Ca I $\lambda$6162 or Na D $\lambda\lambda$ 5890 and 5896 (see "Stellar Spectral Classification" written by Gray and Corbally and A&A or MNRAS instruction for authors manual). > using of Anstroms (\AA) is acceptable in both A&A and MNRAS, I use it in my papers The structure of the manuscript, especially the description of results, is slightly chaotic. I suggest to use the classical structure that contains introduction, observations/methods, results, discussion and summary/conclusion sections, optionally divided into subsections if necessary. > In fact, there was a mish mash, the sections were rearranged Authors should add the description of photometric and astrometric data to Sec. 2. Appropriate references to used catalogs should be cited. The ephemeris part should be moved to the results section. Sections 3, 4 and 5 should be transformed to subsections and merged into the results section. > section 2.2 added > sections 3, 4 and 5 and the ephemeris part were moved to the resut section > references to the catalogs are given in Table 1, last collumn Other specific comments: Most of the field stars are binary or multiple Authors should present some statistics or estimations that support this statement with an appropriate reference. > statistics and references added The multiplicity fraction is higher for those with higher mass. I do not agree with this sentence. It is very general and imprecise. Authors should provide references that support this statement or remove it. > > I used E. J. Delgado et al. 2005, > The Formation of the Multiple Stars, https://www.eso.org/sci/meetings/2005/ms2005/delgado.pdf According my investigation, Pojmanski & Maciejewski (2004, Acta Astron., 54, 153-179) published the first correct period of this eclipsing system. Authors should cite this paper after Pojmanski (1997). It is not clear which exact template was used for CCF. > explanation added In Fig 1, the 2MASS image is described as DSS2 and DSS2 as 2MASS. I also suggest to use the SDSS image instead of DSS2, of much better quality. Appropriate references to both surveys should be added. >> corrected, SDSS used Captions of some figures are not sufficient; there is no explanation what colors on plots mean in case of Figs 2,3, 4 and 5. > added for 3, in case of 2 and 4/5 (now 4) colors are just for clarity Figures 4 and 5 should be also compressed into one figure. >> figures compressed into one Several papers cited in the manuscript (Agueros, Moe & Di Stefano, Pojmanski, Smalley, Tody) are not listed in the reference list. > added to the reference list I found plenty typos (e.g. echele, prpatrion). Authors should at least spell check the text before submission (preferably text should be read and corrected by a native speaker). All used catalog should have proper bibliographic references. > references added - Table 1 Citation of Agueros et al. (2009), in section 4, is incorrect, because derived parameters did not assume binarity. The object is very young (25-45 Myr) and authors should investigate its membership of the young moving group or other association. > I have no experience with this but I checked the stars around in 1' and I didn't > found co motion stars I do not understand why authors used supersolar isochrones (Z=3D0.02), if they got slightly subsolar [M/H]=3D-0.3+/-0.2. =========================================================================