Dear Authors,
I congratulate you because it is clear from the reviewer's responses and my own assessment that the work is good and will be eventually published. However, it is also clear that the manuscript can be improved for readability by the hydrological community (I fully agree with reviewer 1 in this regard). Fortunately, you (and me!) have been very lucky in getting three constructively critical reviews that will help in improving the revised manuscript. Your responses also look positive (you state that you will address most comments in a constructive manner). This is why I do not anticipate any difficulties with this paper. Still, I would like to see the final version before deciding on whether to re-send it for review prior to publication HESS.

I look forwards to your revised version.

I believe that the revised version of the paper is outstanding. I also believe that it reads much better than the original version. Therefore, the paper can be accepted as it stands.

Still, I invite the authors to polish a few points I indicate below. You do not need to change anything. Certainly, you do not need to provide a response. I understand the paper as it stands. Take these a voluntary changes. I am afraid, however, that you will need to submit the new version (even if unchanged!):
1) In line 41 “diverse earth, environmental (…) variables” is awkward. It may be better “diverse environmental (…) variables”
2) The paragraph starting in line 141 “The work is organized as follows…” comes through as somewhat abrupt. I’d suggest, instead, to either eliminate it (you do not need to explain the paper structure) or use it as a bridge between the previous and the following ones. Something like: “Our goal is precisely to investigate the scaling of statistics characterizing vertical increments in borehole neutron porosity data and associated POTs to check if (demonstrate that?) these data display statistical scaling consistent with our propsed framework. The analysis suggests that, quantitatively, the statistics of neutron porosity increments…
3) Although readability has improved a lot, I still find a few terms are confusing (you may wish to revise their use):
3.1) I share the concerns of Reviewer 3 on “subordination”. If A is subordinated to B. Then I would expect B to be the subordinator and A the subordinate. In your case A is W^1/2 and B is tfBm or tfGn. Yet, you refer to W^1/2 as “subordinator” several times. Actually, I feel the problem lies in the use of “subordination”, which I understand as in the military (rank), so that the soldier is subordinated to the captain, whereas I do not see any subordination of this kind in your approach. You may wish to change nomenclature.
3.2) I was also a bit confused by the use of “structure function” (it is used in statistics “Kolmogorov structure function”, particle physics…). My understanding is that your structure function is actually the moment (of order q) of the absolute increments.