Dear authors,

Both reviews have now being provided and after careful reading I will ask you to address most of the points asked by reviewers and perform additional simulations to strengthen the narrative of your study. Specifically:

• Both reviews question the role that Te has in the bed deformation and the fact that the consequences are opposite to what found so far in literature. I also support their point and would like you to move Figure S2 into the main text and provide a detailed explanation on what is observed in your simulation as it is critical to your conclusions
• The spin-up is very important: and though your approach is to start from the same initial grounding line position in all the runs, which is understandable to isolate the GIA processes from the drift du to model equilibrium, I also find very interesting to perform additional simulation without imposing a fixed non-deformable bed condition for the spin-up. This would definitely complement very well your current set of simulations. Besides as both reviewers note, the morphology of the bed is really critical to many aspect discuss in your study and we all know that GIA can modify the shape of the bed.
• Both reviewers also suggest a modification to Equation 2, which is also critical in assessing then the shift toward a rate-induce tipping, depending more on oceanic forcing but effectively pre-conditioned by GIA/bed morphology. Effectively, in its current form, Eq 2 cannot help isolate the impact of oceanic forcing versus Te alone. Thus this modification is important to really isolate the process especially, otherwise, it is difficult to disentangle the relative impact of one relative to the other. However, I also like the set of simulations performed with the original equations, which accounts for combined changes of oceanic forcing and GIA. Thus my suggestion is to redo the simulations with the modifications suggested by both reviewers, but nevertheless keep the current set of simulations as well.
• From reviewer 1: I would also like you to test the impact of higher frequency update of LC as for lower viscosity values, as the potential GIA response is quicker than with larger viscosity values.
• From reviewer 2: I recommend also to follow the advice about grid resolution for the discussion, as well as GIA domain extent. About other stabilizing feedbacks, this is true, atmospheric forcing also impact on the R-tipping, but this is not the object of this study. Thus, a paragraph in the discussion about this other external factor would be enough.

I would like to add that the overall manuscript is really interesting and that is why those changes are necessary. They allow you  to really isolate the impact of GIA on changes in tipping dynamics of different ice stream-ice shelves systems in Antarctica. Because this approach is largely transferable to other sectors as well and might be of strong interest to a wide scientific community.

Florence Colleoni