Thank you for submitting this revised manuscript and supplements, as well as the very detailed response to the reviews. And again, please accept my apologies for the time it has taken to work through the review process for this and the original companion paper.

My opinion is that the manuscript is now almost ready for acceptance but in my review of the revised paper and response to reviewers I noted a few things that I feel need some attention first. I do not anticipate sending this out to reviewers again.

I have two sets of comments. The first is primarily related to language or word choice, or some details of the presentation that I thought would not be clear to the reader. These comments are noted in the attached marked up pdf version of the paper. I do not anticipate any major challenges in addressing these comments. An additional editorial review by a native English speaker would help with some details. There are a few small grammatical errors in the Supplement A text as well, that would be easy to fix.

The second set of comments concerns responses to a few reviewer concerns. For the most the changes in response to reviewers comments have significantly
improved the manuscript and again, thanks for considering them so carefully.
There are three issues outstanding for me. One is the question of data availability. Several reviewers asked specifically that all of the data be made publically available. Many of the data sets are, but some will only be available on request. I have no reason to doubt that the data will be shared on request, but this does not necessarily guarantee that it could be used by others freely. The impact of the work would be greater, now and in the future, if we could be sure of the public archive now. So I urge the authors to reconsider this aspect of the response.

A second, small point concerns the response to R4#7. This reviewer was asking about why the match tolerance was a fixed distance rather than a varying distance due to thinning. I did not find a clear response to that one particular point and would appreciate some additional explanation.

A third point is the inclusion of the DF vs DC phase lag between the deuterium records. The result is interesting, but not well enough described (see my comments in the text) to be evaluated. This may have been included at the request of a reviewer and at face value seems like a nice idea. However, my opinion is that it either needs to be expanded or not included, and I am comfortable with either choice.