The authors have addressed (or justified) the raised points by the reviewers and editor satisfactorily and only very minor mostly technical corrections remain.
Thus, the publication can be accepted for publication after addressing the few very minor technical/editing issues listed below.

Equations: add a comma after equations when the sentence continuous after equation (‘equation, ….where….’ (see reviewer Aschwanden).

p. 3. Last line: the bracket at end of line should probably go onto next paper

p. 4 line 1: the space between the bracket ‘(‘ and ‘Phased’ should be deleted

p. 4 line 21: should it not be ‘… surface velocities ARE used…’

p. 5 line 15: is there not an ‘an’ missing? ‘…such AN objective…’
p. 7 eqn 3: how is Neff calculated/assumed?

p. 11 line 13: In the response to point by reviewer Heimbach, the authors agree that 4 times is not ‘true’ and in actual application it is less and they mentioned to have changed that in the text. I guess it is sort of there but reading through this message of less then 4-times does not come through very well. Maybe it is enough to replace ‘Indeed,…’ by ‘In reality,…’ or ‘,In our case,…’. The real performance should be clarified.

p. 13 line 27: The issue of negative values for densification (line ??? in revides version) raised by reviewer Aschwanden seems to remain. Although the authors explained how to interpret this in their response (which is acceptable), they do not in the paper, and I advice the authors to explain this in one sentence in the paper itself.

p. 18 line 4: delete one closing bracket (between ‘Fig. 8’ and ‘d’).

p. 18 line 19: according go figure and response this should be 1000m not 100m.

p. 20 line 9: I would delete the ‘certainly’ as another certainly appears in next sentence.

p. 22. Line 17: the ‘eff’ in Neff should be subscript (as in equation 3).

p. 23 line 12: ‘results suggest’ instead of ‘resulst suggests’ (plural)

p.23 line 14: is there not a ‘should’ (or similar) missing in front of ‘…be entertained…’?