Again, we thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback. Below is a summary of our planned actions in response to each comment.

1. Section 2.3: We agree to include a table summarizing the key simulation setups to improve clarity.

2. Lines 208-210: We refer to the "Middle (about 394-379 Ma) and Late Devonian (about 379-360Ma)" because both continental configurations (Scotese and Vérard) show, on average, a broader OMZ extent compared to the Early Devonian (about 419-394Ma) (Becker et al., 2020). Consequently, these periods exhibit a higher susceptibility to anoxic events, as the system is, on average, already less oxygenated. The minimum OMZ extent observed at 405 Ma (Early Devonian) further supports this assertion, indicating a system with more available oxygen, making it more difficult to reach an anoxic event. We will adapt the manuscript to clarify that we are referring to the average OMZ extent of Early, Middle and Late Devonian and to the susceptibility of reaching an anoxic event.

3. Figure 5a: The mismatch between the continental configurations in Figures 2 and 5a is expected. Figure 2 shows surface bathymetry, while Figure 5a depicts oxygen concentrations at 1.5 km depth. As a result, regions where the ocean depth is less than 1.5 km are displayed as continental cells in Figure 5a (such as the passage at around 50S, 50W). We will add this clarification to the Figure 5 caption to prevent any confusion.

4. In Figure 6, we deliberately avoided using 1 and 2x pCO2 to prevent interference from any limit cycles, which only occur at these values. In Figures 9a and 9b, we aimed to illustrate how important the impact of the limit cycles on dissolved oxygen can be. To achieve this, we selected specific conditions using different pO2 and [PO4] values for the various limit cycles in Scot390M and Scot420M. We will revise the manuscript to clarify how the values of pCO2, PO4 and pO2 are chosen in those Figures.

5. Lines 251-252: This result is robust across all our cGENIE simulations. We will provide the reviewer with an additional figure showing the evolution of MOC strength as a function of pCO2, to illustrate this behaviour.

6. Figure 8 caption: This is indeed a mistake. The correct anomalies should be between 4 and 2x pCO2 for (c), and between 2 and 1x pCO2 for (f). The text will be updated accordingly.

7. Lines 264-270: In our simulations, MOC strengthening is not spatially uniform, with a gradually more pronounced effect in the northern hemisphere. As [PO4] decreases, the benthic anoxic boundary is shifted southward, sometimes reaching areas less affected by MOC strengthening. Consequently, in certain cases (e.g., Vera370M and Vera420M), when [PO4] becomes small, the effect of increased ventilation on the percentage of benthic anoxia can be significantly reduced. We will revise the manuscript to better justify this.

8. Lines 288-291: We will provide the reviewer with an updated version of Figures 9a and 9b, displaying the results for Scot390M at 4x pCO2. However, since no limit cycle is observed at 4x pCO2, we believe this may not offer additional insights to the document. 

We are grateful for the reviewer's constructive comments and have outlined our actions in response to each of them.

1. Section 3.1: Throughout our simulations, cGENIE displays, at equilibrium, a very similar number and extent of deepwater formation zones for Scotese and Wright (2018) and Vérard (2019a) paleogeographies. Using Verard’s palaeogeography and raising the ocean floor to match the average depth of Scotese’s configuration led to much more similar average ventilation ages (3 times closer). This further demonstrates that, in our experimental design, ocean depth is the primary factor influencing the ventilation age of the benthic ocean. The manuscript will be adapted to better justify this.
2. Section 3.2.2 It is challenging to fully address these points as our simulations represent an equilibrium state, and we prefer to avoid speculative conclusions. As shown in past work (e.g. Gérard and Crucifix 2024), even a detailed analysis of the geostrophic components of equilibrium simulations does not allow for proper identification of the causes of circulation changes. Therefore, separating the changes that are attributable to the seesaw effect from those of a different effect is non-straightforward with the material at hand. We suspect that sea ice does not play a significant role, as its presence is minimal and vanishes completely from 4x pCO2 and higher scenarios. The seesaw phenomenon might instead be more closely related to the bathymetry, which helps structure the ocean circulation. Furthermore, continental configuration likely plays a central role in shaping the differential temperature and salinity responses between hemispheres. While the question of the reviewer is interesting, the explanation we offer here remains speculative and providing a definitive answer might be a bit out of the scope of the present study because our experimental sign is not suited to tackle such a fuller investigation.
3. Section 3.2.2: A hatched area will be added to Fig. 8c to match the conventions used in Fig. 8f. 

Minor comments:

1. Line 56: “Sensibility” will be replaced with “sensitivity”.
2. Line 32: We will follow the reviewer's advice and break into a new paragraph at “Extensive”. 
3. Line 135-136: Fig. 1 will be cited at the end of the following sentence: “The albedo profile depends on the latitude only (see Fig. 1)”. 
4. Line 157-159: We will add the justification for the chosen range of parameters at the end of section 2.3.  
5. Line 226: The period will be replaced by a space.
6. Figure 5 caption: Indeed, A and H labels correspond to the outline of anoxic and hypoxic conditions. An explicit description of these outlines will be provided in the caption of Fig. 5.