Dear Dr. Harpold and Colleagues,

Please make an effort to address the substantial criticism from Referee-1. Your response in the interactive discussion is an excellent start. I look forward to receiving your revision.

Best,
Ying

Dear Dr. Harpold,

I am attaching the referee comments below. Please make the suggested very minor revisions, and I am ready to accept the manuscript.

Best,
Ying

-----------------------------------------
Referee:

Overall, I find the document notably improved; the reworking of the introduction helps the rest of the document markedly, and make the “laundry lists”, as I called them, feel less “list-y”. The expansion of the vision section is of real value. I also like the refocus of the existing transdisciplinary papers as exemplar, rather than stand alone examples.

There are a number of typos in the document post revision; the authors should be able to find these with a quick read through or a grammar/spell check of the document—I have chosen not to list them all here, but there are many and something they should fix prior to publication.

Otherwise, this paper seems like it’s in much better shape. Three minor points below.

Line 335. It’s unclear what a score is at this point. The whole “20% of each discipline” piece has not yet been explained, so this paragraph makes little sense.

Line 521. What is “lidar-like”?

Line 596. Is a reference missing here?
------------------------------------------------