We have a paper that is a second round R&R at a Journal that is a cognate field which is less technical than ours. The editor has been extremely conscientious and supportive through the process, but has made several suggestion that reveal he doesn’t really understand some of the deeper methodological details of our approach. In particular they are concerned that X could be playing a role but this is definitely not the case.
I don’t want to respond saying X can’t explain our results because textbooks prove otherwise. We could probably handle this but this is the second round in which they have suggested X is an issue/explanation, despite us gently explaining in our first round response and adding a footnote explaining why X was not an issue. So we need to find a better way of persuading him that this isn’t an issue.
In particular, I am interested in solutions that avoid the need to explicitly contradict him.