This is a well-executed study that makes a genuine contribution to our understanding of Antarctic Peninsula (AP) mass changes. The authors combine SPOT5-HRS DEMs with REMA, vertically adjusted using ICESat and ICESat-2 laser altimetry, to produce high-resolution (30 m) elevation change maps over a 14-year period. The approach is methodologically sound, the uncertainty quantification is thorough, and the spatial detail revealed is a clear advance over previous altimetry-based estimates. I recommend acceptance after minor revisions.

Major comments:

1. The authors report an AP Ice Sheet mass change of -26.5 ± 5.3 Gt/a, which is 4–5 times more negative than the IMBIE altimetry estimate of -5.2 ± 2.3 Gt/a. While the authors correctly attribute this discrepancy to the resolution limitations of satellite altimetry in mountainous terrain, the discussion would benefit from a more explicit spatial breakdown of where this difference originates.
2. The FAC correction is identified as the largest source of uncertainty, yet the discussion of inter-model divergence remains brief. Since the authors already computed mass change outputs for all four FDMs individually, a short dedicated discussion of why these models diverge would be a valuable addition. In particular, are certain models known to perform better over the Peninsula, given its strong west–east climate gradient?

Minor comments

• The abstract states the AP Ice Sheet lost -27 ± 9 Gt/a, while Table 1 reports -28.2 ± 5.9 Gt/a for the SIL20 (APIS) outline. Please clarify this apparent inconsistency.
• Figure 1: "Prince Gustav chanel" should read "Prince Gustav Channel."
• Line 416: Trooz Glacier is cited with a thickening signal of +0.32 ± 0.26 m/a in the text, yet Figure 7 reports +0.06 ± 0.08 m/a. Please clarify whether these values refer to different spatial extents or time periods.
• Line 547: "Eembayment" should read "Embayment."
• Line 569: "in a many areas" should read "in many areas."
• Line 711: "personnal communication" should read "personal communication."

The paper describes elevation and mass change observations on the Antarctic Peninsula and surrounding islands (AP). The region is a difficult setup for mass change assessment, since all measuring methods show limitations so far. Radar altimetry has a rather coarse footprint or the swath mode data is limited by the steep topography, specifically on the northern part of the AP. Laser altimetry is limited by clouds and the sparse tracks. DEM differencing from optical imagery was limited by frequent clouds and oversaturation while bi-static radar interferometry by the short observation times, challenges for phase unwrapping and co-registration on sparse stable ground. Direct measurements from gravimetry are limited due to the narrow mountain range and a cross orbit track setting. The input-output method is subject to uncertain ice thickness estimations and measurements as previous papers revealed and what forms the base for the current SCAR RINGS AP initiative. Hence, this new data sets based on DEMs from the SPOT5-HRS and REMA is of high relevance, since it overcomes some of the deficiencies mentioned above for optical DEM differencing, specifically the difficulties with over-saturation in bright areas. Besides the DEM differencing, the paper includes an analysis on firn compaction models and GIA and elastic rebound. The paper is very well written and advances our understanding of mass changes for this region. The methods are very extensively described which is very much appreciated. I strongly recommend acceptance of the paper after some minor corrections.

Specific comments:

L12: I agree that your estimate is 4-5 times more negative as IMBIE, however, this value range is not completely new. A previous DEM change analysis by Seehaus et al. (2023) also referred to later in this paper reported comparable values (24 +- 2.8 Gt) although for a shorter time period (2013-2017). Hence, at least an indication, that such a previous study exist should be mentioned also in the abstract. 

L21: “… responding dramatically” is a kind of not clearly defined expression. The authors might consider choosing a different wording.

L23: I suggest to refer to the original literature that discovered this reaction to ice shelf collapse and not to one of the many subsequent studies. Specifically, as this reaction has not been discovered by altimetry.

L68: If I understand this sentence correctly, the ICESat-1/2 elevations are used not necessarily from the same year, but from the same season. Maybe, this could be expressed more clearly since the subsequent description in the method sections reads like only data from the same year/season had been considered (e.g. L206, L244).

L416: The values in the text and Fig.7 for Trooz Glacier are different. Please clarify if this is caused the elevation interval restriction to 0-800m.

Fig. 7: it would be interesting to read more including an explanation for the very heterogeneous dh/dt values on Anvers Island, e.g Iliad Glacier and surroundings. It is shown in the map, but I could not fins a corresponding section in the main text (L579 and following). Fig.4 shows a quite limited coverage whereas Fig.7 provides values for each glacier catchment. Do those heterogeneous values partially come from the interpolation?

L599: This paragraph mainly contains information from previous work without a real own contribution. Could perhaps be shortened and other parts extended as mentioned before e.g. on Anvers Island glaciers. It is understood, that this is mainly an observational paper, however, an attempt for a glaciological/climatological explanation of those close by differences in advance/retreat would be of interest. This does not come out from the quite general and known statements on DCW influence (L612f). Same for Jason Peninsula. 

L704: The doi and location of the elevation and mass change product should be published with the paper.

References:

Seehaus, T., Sommer, C., Dethinne, T., and Malz, P.: Mass changes of the northern Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet derived from repeat bi-static synthetic aperture radar acquisitions for the period 2013–2017, The Cryosphere, 17, 4629–4644, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-4629-2023, 2023.