Dear authors,
This manuscript received two very positive reviews that highlighted the impressive and very interesting dataset and analysis combined with a fracture algorithm that allow the reproduction and predictions of the rift development. Both reviewers only suggested only minor revisions with the more substantial points being (i) making figures (show strain rosettes, background flow) more effective, (ii) rephrase/clarify the fracture algorithm (rather than criterion) and (iii) interpretation of mode I or II crack.
These comments of the reviewers and the very minor points have been very carefully and effectively addressed, and I only spotted very few minor technical details that may need correcting and are listed below.

Thus, after these technical corrections, the paper is ready to be accepted for final publication and I congratulate the authors for their very interesting paper and also would like to thank them for their excellent handling of the revision process.

Best regards
Andreas Vieli, the editor, 22th dec 2017

Minor points:
p. 6 line 10: something wrong here with plural/singular, I guess it should be in plural: ‘…by vertical black stripes.’ (delete ‘a’)

p. 14, line 10: something wron at sentence beginning with ‘Average values…’, delete ‘Severa’???

p. 20 line 21: to be consistent with changes in abstract and methods in response to the editor comment, it should here say ‘algorithm’ rather than ‘criterion’.

Just checking a general point: as a response to review the term ‘chasm’ has been replaced by ‘rift’ throughout except when you refer to ‘Chasm 1’. I assume you deliberately did not change this to ‘Rift 1’ as this is the common name of the feature.