The discussion comments are generally positive, and point out a number of places where the paper could be improved. The authors' responses to the discussion indicates to me that they plan to introduce some new analyses (on the quantification of potential errors), and that they intend to clarify the presentation in response to a number of review comments.
I thank the discussers for their thoughtful comments, the authors for their detailed responses, and I encourage the authors to proceed with revisions along the lines they have indicated in their responses.

In my opinion the manuscript can be accepted as it is.
Please pay attention to the added sentence in conclusion. The term "regression models" could be misinterpreted and considered pejorative. I fully agree that all hydrological models need to a certain extent calibration but most of them are not statitical black-box models.