Addendum to “On an unverified nuclear decay and its role in the DAMA experiment” [Phys. Lett. B 720 (4-5) (2013) 399-404]

We reply to the critiques of our paper arXiv:1210.5501 by the DAMA Collaboration which appeared in arXiv:1210.6199 and arXiv:1211.6346. Our original claim that the observed background levels are likely to require a large modulation fraction of any putative signal holds. In fact, in light of DAMAʼs recent comment our claim is further corroborated. We identify the source of the discrepancy between our own analysis and DAMAʼs claimed levels of unmodulated background. Our analysis indicates that the background in the signal region as reported by DAMA is indeed likely underestimated.