I believe that there is in the reviews a lot of critics to help you improve your manuscript. I read your answers with interest, and I would like to draw your attention on three points:

. you cannot expect readers to have read all the previous papers of your group. It's up to you to summarize very briefly the main outcomes to help them follow what you are doing;

. reviewer 1 is obviously concerned by the need for demonstrating the interest of signature-based regionalization. I have seen (and heard) so much confuse things about it, that I do agree with him. Try to spend a little time convincing your reader that constraining calibration with simulated signatures is worth being tried;

. last reviewer 3 talks about "disappointing" results and you seem upset... my point of view is that there is no shame at all at publishing disappointing results, and I always have a lot of consideration for those authors who are not afraid of acknowledging the limits of their work.

Congratulations for you revised paper.

Please see if you can add one line of comment/explanation in answer to the comment raised by Reviewer 1.