In regards to my own initial comments and Referee #1's major comment on where the focus of the paper is - to which the authors answer that they are assessing the validity of the product at multiple scales -- I would like to see in the revision that the authors clearly describe and motivate the aggregation method used in the methods section. I see that some sentences have been added to the Discussion acknowledging that the aggregation method affects the results - the other methods mentioned may need references. Are there other studies that have addressed the effect of aggregation method on continuous data? I think this would be an important addition. Referee #2 also would like to see more description of the methods.

Referee #1 also mentions that the language does not flow smoothly, and I strongly encourage the authors to look carefully at their text before the next submission. There are some grammar issues throughout the paper that need to be addressed by the authors.

The authors' response to Referee #2 was much longer (23 pages vs 3 pages), but in responses to major points for Ref #2, I cannot see what changes have been made, other than a statement that says changes have been made. This makes it difficult to judge. Additionally, answer #2 to Ref #2 (e.g., that it would take significant work to re-do) is not a satisfying argument. Here you also have a graph where you say in the text that you are showing SD in (a) and SWE in (b) but both Y-axes say SD. What is correct? I think that if a referee has questions on this, then you need to support this well in your manuscript (eg, a revised graph in supplemental material).

Point 3 from Ref #2, I am not sure the authors have addressed the point made, and I would like the referee's input there. There is a also new figure, but if these numbers are of averages for whole basins, that is not conveyed by the Figure text, as it is now. I would need the referee's comment on whether they are satisfied with the response here.

Point 4 from Ref #2 I see your thought process in the response, but I cannot see where you have changed the text, and so we will need to evaluate your response once you resubmit your manuscript.

Point 5 I see that the authors include the revised text. I encourage the authors to re-read their text with fresh eyes to see if the language flows and the text clearly expresses a deeper analysis. For example, I think the first sentence "The differences in validation results of the C-snow product at different
scales are due to the combined effects of various factors...." could be written in a more explicit way, such as naming those factors. Otherwise it is a rather vague sentence. Here also it would be good to have Ref #2's feedback on whether they are satisfied with the changes. There is also some grammar to correct in this new text as well.

In the next submission, I would like to see the full manuscript if possible, as I found it difficult to interpret the changes that had actually been made.
For this reason and the others given above I decide on "Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees)". I will look forward to your next version.

Please provide the information requested on maps and aerials for figures 1, 13, 14 and A1 in the final manuscript.