This is a well-written and solid paper that makes a valuable contribution to the hydroclimatic reconstruction literature in northern Fennoscandia. The authors present an impressive millennium-long May–June precipitation reconstruction from sub-Arctic Sweden,  a region where moisture-sensitive chronologies are scarce. The study is carefully executed, and the dataset will be of interest to both dendroclimatologists and those working on broader hydroclimatic variability in northern Europe. Congratulations on the hard work.

That said, a few aspects could be improved before acceptance:

References . The manuscript would benefit from including a few key recent works, especially those related to long-term hydroclimate variability and cyclic patterns. I recommend citing in the introduction Esper et al. (2024), and when talking about microsites, Hartl et al. (2021). Additionally,  the recent work done by Torbenson et al. (2025), could provide relevant methodological and interpretive context for multidecadal variability and the role of large-scale ocean–atmosphere dynamics, particularly regarding the Maunder Minimum..

Figure 9 – This is arguably the main figure of the paper, yet its current design is suboptimal. The reconstruction, uncertainty bands, and historical annotations are visually cluttered. I suggest a clearer graphical layout ents. Lower the shades and highlight the reconstruction.. 

Discussion of cyclicity and solar forcing – The discussion of the ~64-year and ~34-year cycles is intriguing but could be developed further. In particular, the authors briefly mention the Dalton and Spörer minima but omit the Maunder Minimum, which is essential in the context of multi-decadal hydroclimate variability and possible solar forcing. I recommend adding a more explicit discussion of the Maunder Minimum, potential links to solar cycles (e.g., Gleissberg or Suess/de Vries), and whether these correspond to the periodicities found in the reconstruction and in AMO/PDO.

Appendix Figure D1. Very difficult to interpret. I suggest to include a larger plot with pannels for each reconstruction. Perhaps use only the 11 y running mean with shades in red for dry, and blue for wet periods. I would be better for interpreting all the figures. Otherwise it is useless..

In summary, this is a strong and original manuscript. I recommend acceptance after minor revisions, addressing the missing references, improving Figure 9, and expanding the discussion on long-term cyclicity and the Maunder Minimum.

Minor edits

Line 39 add Esper et al., 2024.. Difficult to explain why it is ommitted.. Esper, J., Torbenson, M. & Büntgen, U. 2023 summer warmth unparalleled over the past 2,000 years. Nature 631, 94–97 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07512-y

Line 46. Include https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2020.125787

Line 164, (march??) what´s that?

Line 312, what about comparing it with the OWDA or the most recently updated GEDA? that would be more sound than Pauling.. and apples to apples..

Line 465.. and the Maunder?? it is the solar minima of the last 500 years.. why is it not mentioned? you can discuss such growth-climate disruption using the recently published Torberson et al., 2025. Torbenson, M. C. A., Stahle, D. W., Cook, E. R., Cook, B. I., Büntgen, U., Chen, F., et al. (2025). Disruption of drought teleconnections between ENSO-influenced regions around 1700 CE. Geophysical Research Letters, 52, e2025GL115600. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GL115600 

Lines 485-490. More discussion on the relationship of AMO/ PDO and the positive and negative cycles.. is there a connection??? this is very important and could add value to the reconstruction.