The H0LiCOW collaboration inferred via gravitational lensing time delays a Hubble constant $H_0=73.3^{+1.7}_{-1.8}$ km s$^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, describing deflector mass density profiles by either a power-law or stars plus standard dark matter halos. The mass-sheet transform (MST) that leaves the lensing observables unchanged is considered the dominant source of residual uncertainty in $H_0$. We quantify any potential effect of the MST with flexible mass models that are maximally degenerate with H0. Our calculation is based on a new hierarchical approach in which the MST is only constrained by stellar kinematics. The approach is validated on hydrodynamically simulated lenses. We apply the method to the TDCOSMO sample of 7 lenses (6 from H0LiCOW) and measure $H_0=74.5^{+5.6}_{-6.1}$ km s$^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. In order to further constrain the deflector mass profiles, we then add imaging and spectroscopy for 33 strong gravitational lenses from the SLACS sample. For 9 of the SLAC lenses we use resolved kinematics to constrain the stellar anisotropy. From the joint analysis of the TDCOSMO+SLACS sample, we measure $H_0=67.4^{+4.1}_{-3.2}$ km s$^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, assuming that the TDCOSMO and SLACS galaxies are drawn from the same parent population. The blind H0LiCOW, TDCOSMO-only and TDCOSMO+SLACS analyses are in mutual statistical agreement. The TDCOSMO+SLACS analysis prefers marginally shallower mass profiles than H0LiCOW or TDCOSMO-only. While our new analysis does not statistically invalidate the mass profile assumptions by H0LiCOW, and thus their $H_0$ measurement relying on those, it demonstrates the importance of understanding the mass density profile of elliptical galaxies. The uncertainties on $H_0$ derived in this paper can be reduced by physical or observational priors on the form of the mass profile, or by additional data, chiefly spatially resolved kinematics of lens galaxies.

Time-delay cosmography of lensed quasars has achieved 2.4% precision on the measurement of the Hubble constant, $H_0$. As part of an ongoing effort to uncover and control systematic uncertainties, we investigate three potential sources: 1- stellar kinematics, 2- line-of-sight effects, and 3- the deflector mass model. To meet this goal in a quantitative way, we reproduced the H0LiCOW/SHARP/STRIDES (hereafter TDCOSMO) procedures on a set of real and simulated data, and we find the following. First, stellar kinematics cannot be a dominant source of error or bias since we find that a systematic change of 10% of measured velocity dispersion leads to only a 0.7% shift on $H_0$ from the seven lenses analyzed by TDCOSMO. Second, we find no bias to arise from incorrect estimation of the line-of-sight effects. Third, we show that elliptical composite (stars + dark matter halo), power-law, and cored power-law mass profiles have the flexibility to yield a broad range in $H_0$ values. However, the TDCOSMO procedures that model the data with both composite and power-law mass profiles are informative. If the models agree, as we observe in real systems owing to the "bulge-halo" conspiracy, $H_0$ is recovered precisely and accurately by both models. If the two models disagree, as in the case of some pathological models illustrated here, the TDCOSMO procedure either discriminates between them through the goodness of fit, or it accounts for the discrepancy in the final error bars provided by the analysis. This conclusion is consistent with a reanalysis of six of the TDCOSMO (real) lenses: the composite model yields $H_0=74.2^{+1.6}_{-1.6}$ $km.s^{-1}.Mpc^{-1}$, while the power-law model yields $74.0^{+1.7}_{-1.8}$ $km.s^{-1}.Mpc^{-1}$. In conclusion, we find no evidence of bias or errors larger than the current statistical uncertainties reported by TDCOSMO.

In recent years, breakthroughs in methods and data have enabled gravitational time delays to emerge as a very powerful tool to measure the Hubble constant $H_0$. However, published state-of-the-art analyses require of order 1 year of expert investigator time and up to a million hours of computing time per system. Furthermore, as precision improves, it is crucial to identify and mitigate systematic uncertainties. With this time delay lens modelling challenge we aim to assess the level of precision and accuracy of the modelling techniques that are currently fast enough to handle of order 50 lenses, via the blind analysis of simulated datasets presented in paper I. The results in Rung 1 and Rung 2 show that methods that use only the point source positions tend to have lower precision ($10 - 20\%$) while remaining accurate. In Rung 2, the methods that exploit the full information of the imaging and kinematic datasets can recover $H_0$ within the target accuracy ($ |A| < 2\%$) and precision ($< 6\%$ per system), even in the presence of poorly known point spread function and complex source morphology. A post-unblinding analysis of Rung 3 showed the numerical precision of the ray-traced cosmological simulations to be insufficient to test lens modelling methodology at the percent level, making the results difficult to interpret. A new challenge with improved simulations is needed to make further progress in the investigation of systematic uncertainties. For completeness, we present the Rung 3 results in an appendix, and use them to discuss various approaches to mitigating against similar subtle data generation effects in future blind challenges.