The scientific dispute between Weiss on the one hand and the authors Bakke and Bradley on the other are those that enliven the special volume dedicated to the 4.2 event.
It is my personal opinion that just to discuss the complexity of the evidences of 4.2 event is important in this context. From careful reading of the arguments and the counter reply to the comments, I think the work can be considered mature for publication. However, to improve the general quality and satisfy "the palates" of many readers, it would be necessary to make some additions to the text and minor corrections.

First in the special issue there is no 4.2ka convention but 4.2 ka is used (this applies also to other similar events like 8.2).
At line 31 some citation are necessary (why not Weiss 2016 or similar?)
Line 69: just a comment: from the showed records also the 8.2 vent is not always represented….
Line 96-97 from the text alone it is unclear which is the paper related to this well-resolved and well-dated reccors (is Berner et al., 2011?) Please clarify.
3.2 Iceland. It was important to insert this part. But probably it should be necessary spend few more words somewhere on why here it is reasonable to think that some evidences are present.
In general one reader would be very happy if the authors (very short eventually) try to draw inferences about why in this area the 4.2 event is neither particularly visible nor particularly prominent. I totally agree with Weiss considering the fact this event is evident in other regions, and I also agree with the authors that the absence is some region can help in understanding better the origin of this event. A short conclusion on that is probably necessary.
Figure 1 is not particularly informative and the caption is rather poor. Please adds some information on the oceanic currents and in the caption information on the symbols (including references) is mandatory.
Finally I agree with RC1 a figure showing some of the records discussed (selected by the authors is OK, but it is difficult to follow without any figure) in the text will improve the “pleasure” of the reading. I recommend adding a figure 5 including some records quoted in the text, which the authors indicate as more significant. Possibly adding a record, which show the event. Like from Iceland?
I think the manuscript can be accepted after minor review as suggested.
I thank the authors and reviewers for the valuable discussion that was never missed during and after the workshop on the 4.2 event.

I think the authors replayed to the most important points I have raised. I'm happy that this paper will be finally inserted in the special issue.