The manuscript by Anderson et al provides new information on the last deglaciation of NE Greenland. Based on 29 ¹⁰Be ages from Scoresby Sund and Storstrømmen Isbræ, they add to the existing geochronological data from the area. Overall, the new data is not surprising but generally supports the existing deglaciation chronology. The data is furthermore used to constrain the retreat rates from the outer coast to the present-day ice margin. Based on the compilation of data, they calculated retreat rates of 43 to 28 m/yr. These estimates are similar to what has previously been reported and identical to modern observations of ice retreat. One could be critical and argue that the new results lack novelty and are insufficient to warrant a new publication. However, I find it very valuable as it provides more data to constrain the deglaciation of NE Greenland – an area where little work has been done. Accordingly, I recommend publication as it provides one more piece in the puzzle of the deglaciation history of NE Greenland.

Overall, I find the manuscript well-written, and the data support the conclusions. Besides some general comments, I have only a few minor comments that are all provided to improve the quality of the manuscript. 

General comments:

• Re-calibration of ¹⁴ The regional dR (-46 +/- 57) for East Greenland (cf. Pearce et al., 2023) has not been used. Instead, a local dR has been used. However, it is unclear how the local dR’s have been determined. Did you take the average of the nearest datapoints for each sample?
• The title is a little misleading. It gives the impression that the focus of the study is the regional ice sheet history of East Greenland. However, this is not the case, and the title should reflect that it is a more local study of two study sites in Scoresby Sund and Storstrømmen Isbræ.
• The potential link between a readvance/stabilisation at Storstrømmen Glacier and the 8.2 ka cold event is rather weak and should be toned down (see comment below).

Minor comments:

Line 14: As written in the abstract – the study area concerns Scoresby Sund and Storstrømmen Glacier and this should be reflected in the title.

Line 45: Change Storstrømmen ”Isstrøm” to ”Glacier”

Line 57: It would be relevant to add a sentence on the Holocene history of NEGIS i.e. Weidick et al., 1996; Bennike and Weidick 2001; Larsen et al., 2018; Roberts et al., 2024

Line 60: Leger et al have made an excellent review of the overall deglaciation history of Greenland based on existing data. However, the citation to their work here is misplaced as they don’t provide any new data in East Greenland, unlike the other cited papers.

Line 70: In Larsen et al., 2022, there are more comprehensive ice margin outlines in NE and E Greenland that could be added to the figure.

Line 96: Roberts et al., 2024 are determining the thinning history of 79N based on several dip-stick profiles. For the retreat history, it would be more accurate to cite Bennike and Weidick 2001; Larsen et al., 2018.

Line 100-105: This paragraph is not very relevant for this study.

Line 135: Add Germania Land and other place names to figure 1. The Milne Land moraines are discontinuous but have been inferred to run parallel to the coast from Scoresby Sund to Germania Land. However, it has only been dated around Scoresby Sund and the correlation is uncertain.

Figure 3: The age estimate from Levy et al is based on several 10Be dates. I suggest adding this information to the figure caption or to the figure as n=x next to the 10Be age.

I would make Panel A bigger and add the weighted mean from each site below the individual 10Be dates. Then Panel B could be omitted.

Line 159:  Change Storstrømmen ”Isstrøm” to ”Glacier”

Figure 4: The age estimates are based on several 10Be dates from each site. I suggest adding this information to the figure caption or to the figure as n=x next to the 10Be age. It would also be relevant to include the 10Be ages from Håkansson et al. and Skov et al on the figure, although they are not used to calculate retreat rates.

Line 230 (table 2): Why are all the samples from Storstrømmen used to calculate a mean age? It would be more relevant to provide the mean ages of M1, and outboard.

Line 321. In the discussion of the deglaciation of Scoresby Sund I miss a discussion of the previous work of Hall et al., 2008a, b; Kelly et al., 2008 from Kjove Land, Gurreholm dal and Schuchert dal.

Figure 6: I suggest adding the calculated weighted mean, excluding outliers from table 2, to the camel plots.

Figure 7: It is not clear which 10Be + 14C dates have been used to constrain the retreat history. Maybe this could be highlighted on Figure 3 + 4?

Line 375: Within uncertainty, the M1 moraine (8.6 +- 0.3 ka) could be related to the 8.2 ka event when excluding one outlier of 9.6 ka. However, in theory, it might also be related to the 9.3 ka event if the samples dated reflect the stabilisation of the moraine rather than the deposition of the moraine cf. Heyman et al., 2011. Or something unrelated to climate - the glacier is retreating to a pinning point (the island), and this could halt the ice retreat and give rise to the deposition of moraine M1. Given that the authors only have data from one moraine, it is a little far-fetched to speculate that the ice sheet reacted to the 8.2 ka event despite compelling evidence from W Greenland (c.f. Young et al.). I urge the authors to tone down the potential relation to the 8.2 ka event (paragraphs line 375-397).

Anderson et al. present a chronology of post-Last Glacial Maximum Greenland Ice Sheet retreat at Scoresby Sund and Storstrømmen Isbræ based on cosmogenic nuclide ¹⁰Be exposure dating. The exposure ages from erratic boulders and bedrock from these regions, when compared to radiocarbon ages and other in situ ¹⁰Be-dated samples, are consistent with the timing and rates of retreat documented at other sites across east and northeast Greenland. The patterns inferred from calculated ice margin retreat rates are also consistent with modern day observations. The additional dates and constraints presented in this study contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of Greenland ice sheet dynamics, and I would recommend publication. Below is a short list of minor comments.

Minor comments

It may be beneficial to readers who are new to this topic to provide a very brief description of the use of in situ ¹⁰Be along with citations (e.g., Nishiizumi et al., 1989; Lal, 1991; maybe Ivy-Ochs and Briner, 2014 for an overview/summary) so they can better familiarize themselves with the dating methods and other concepts (i.e., inheritance) discussed in this paper.

L45: The acronym “SI” is not used elsewhere in the manuscript – would recommend removing it. On a related note, “ZI” is only used once in L92. Perhaps consider just using Zachariae Isstrom instead.

L91-99 provides a list of already available retreat chronologies in east and northeast Greenland. In addition to the general explanation in L58-65, it may benefit the reader to explain the reasoning why additional dates from the two specific regions presented in this study are necessary. 

Fig.3B: Consider including ages at Uunarteq and Kap Brewster, as well

Table 2: 23DMH-CR1 is italicized in Table 2 as an outlier, but it is not italicized in Fig.5

L279: 26.5 ± 0.6 ka should be 26.4 ± 0.6 ka

L307: “and are inboard of the M1 moraine,” and “On the northern margin of the island…”

Fig.7: It may be considerate to define any acronyms (i.e., TCN) in the caption for those readers who first browse a paper’s figures to understand the main points before reading in detail

L397: Delete “from”

L416: Change “At the Store Koldewey Trough, located west of Store Koldewey Island…” to “At the Store Koldewey Trough, located east of Store Koldewey Island…”