Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in handling your paper. I hope it was not too much of an inconvenience.

I feel that your revisions have for the most part satisfied the reviewers concerns and that the new manuscript is appropriately cautious. There are just a few points I would ask you to address in a second revision:

Editor comments on revision of cp-2018-78

Page 1, line 22, “geochemistry” is misspelled.

Section 3.3 has the same title as section 4.1. Please make a change in one of them.

Page 6, line 26. It would probably be best to translate A contrario to English as the phrase (sadly) is not common for English speakers (use “in contrast”).

Page 6. Chronology section. Unless I missed it there is no specific discussion of the rejection of the outliers in the age model. This should be discussed in the text.

Page 18, lines 10-20. I think this section should be simplified. All of the ages are within uncertainty of each other regardless of the outliers, so it seems awkward to reject outliers then claim better agreement. Instead you can simply describe the level of agreement and that you can’t reject the hypothesis that the moraine abandonment and GIS retreat were synchronous. Given the story line you wish to present this may take a little reorganization of the text.

Page 19, line 21. The word “accurate” seems awkward to me here.

The table in the supplementary information that contains published radiocarbon ages does not have a title or caption.

One of the reviewers made this comment:
P8, 20. And P13, 6. What species were dated? Can these be a mixture of >50 k and contemporaneous forams? It seems unlikely that forams would look fresh after being entrained in a 20 current. This is not very convincing about forams coming from Hall Basin.

Your response is below, but as far as I can tell no changes were made to the text for this. Could you address this issue further?

As with molluscs, foraminifera species were not formerly identified in this study. The sample is likely to have included mainly Cassidulina reniforme and Islandiella norcrossi based on the species present in other horizons of unit 3B.

Thank you very much for the revisions, which I am happy to see. I can now confirm that I recommend the paper for publication with these changes.

I did notice one small issue that I suggest you fix. On page 6, line 26, you write this:

"Fourteen of the 14C yielded consistent ages along a smooth spline, ..."

I think you mean to write "14C ages" here.