I think that the suggested changes and those discussed by the authors are sufficient to accept the manuscript, once checked that these have been inserted in the final version.

However, I suggest the authors to minimize the figures included in the supplementary materials. For instance, carbon isotope could be inserted in the text along with the additional figure with the regional records and related explanation.
A couple of sentences to explain why carbon is not discussed can be sufficient.

It is better to add the explanation about the Z-score in the text instead of in the caption of the figure.

The authors have done an excellent job in their review and reorganization of the manuscript and it can be accepted without further modification.

There are some editorial changes that I suggest to be done and that could also be made in proofreading. However, two are on figures, so it would be useful to change them before the final submission.

Line 20 ML.1 and ML.2 instead of ML.1 & ML.2
Line45-46 Dixit et al., 2014,2018
Line 112 4-5 m instead of 4-5m and 700 m instead of 700m
Line 184 88 mm instead of 88mm and 7 mm instead of 7mm
Lines 215-216 4.31 and 4.30 ka BP
Line 217 4.05 and 3.87 ka BP

Caption figure 1. It is not fundamental but it would be better to write June-July-August-September (JJAS) precipitation…..

Figure 2 G. ruber instead of G. Ruber (it would be preferable specie name in italic, see also M. tubercolata)
Caption: Kotla Dhar lake.
The yellow bar highlights…..as defined in this work? Or?

Caption figure 3: 315 and 311 mm respectively

Caption figure 4 Please insert the references for COPRA, Bchron and ISCAM

Figure 5 the letter A should be lowered to the isotopic curve. Now it seems to refers to U/Th ages