I think it was beneficial to have comments and feedback from someone who was looking at PlioMIP from the outside, especially for an expanding project encompassing various goals and with many participants. If the authors can incorporate at least some of the responses which they gave to the reviewers into the manuscript, especially those regarding the simulations, then this would further bolster their message and rationale behind the ideas for the set of experiments.

Hopefully, the upcoming paper on PRISM4 data reconstruction will complement this paper, helping to resolve some of the issues raised by the reviewers.

And, of course, the authors should deal appropriately with the suggestions at the end of the reviewers' comments.

Dear Alan,

I am happy to see the revised version published. However, please could you first double check the last column of table 3. Unless I am mistaken, the following needs to be changed:

Expt 2) E400: T1:P4F -> T2:P4F
Expt 3) E560: T2:P4F -> T1:P4F
Expt 8) Eoi280: T2:P4F in addition to T2:P4P

As it is, the table does not seem to agree with either the text or figure 2

Yours,

Wing-Le Chan