Dear authors,
Thanks for carefully answering all referee and short comments. I think your answers make sense and I encourage you to revise your manuscript accordingly. I would like to put some additional emphasis on a few points:

1. Make sure the data collection is complete (comments by A. Rouillard and Referee#1). It is important for such a review paper that this is the case and it would be a shame if some records were missing, given the huge effort you have investsed in this collection.
Given a large fraction of samples from your domain are analyzed at ANSTO (as far as I know), it may be a good idea to contact them and ask if they are aware of some records you may have missed (if you haven't done so yet). Henk Heijnis, Atun Zawadzki, Patricia Gadd and Geraldine Jacobsen may be good contact persons for this.
In addition, as suggested by Referee#1, please indicate the date, until which new records were considered.

2. From your response to Referee#1, I understand that you have made an inquiry to the members of the Australian Quaternary Association for information about existing records. I strongly suggest to include a statement in the acknowledgements to mention all persons that provided data/information for this paper (can also be "members of AQUA" if there are many persons).

3. I think adding comparison of old and new age models for each record (in the SM with examples in the main text) is important and will be very helpful for future work. Particularly if the key differences and implications are discussed. If it helps, please find an example of such a comparison figure in Grimm et al. (2014; attached as "comments to author" PDF).

4. My compliments to your exemplary answers to SC2 regarding data stewardship. Regarding your answer to comment (1): Having table S1 in electronic format available online may be a useful resource (e.g. for plotting records on a map) so I would recommend to include this into your public data collection.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Best regards,
Raphael Neukom

Dear authors,
I am very pleased to see that all points raised by the referees and short comments have been carefully addressed. I can accept the revised version of the manuscript after some minor technical corrections.
These technical corrections concern table 1: In consultation with the 2k Special Issue Data Review Team, I recommend the following changes:

- Consider replacing the "primary author" + "year published" columns with a proper citation call out (e.g., Konecky et al. 2011), reduced to one column so that it's formally integrated with the References Cited section.

- "YBP" should be stripped from the columns where it is repeated in every cell and added to the header title (e.g., "oldest year (yr BP)") -- the same as for "elevation (m.a.s.l)".

- The column heading "Resolution" should be replaced with "Resolution (yr)".

- If feasible, consider inclusing the PAGES2k ID directly into table 1 in a separate column. The advantage of including the PAGES 2k ID is that LiPD files are available for these. LiPD files are machine readable; NOAA text files are not because their format is not standardized. The URLs provided in Table 1 satisfy the data policy, but the LiPD files go a step further to make the data more easily reusable.

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or remarks