The study was reviewed by three independent reviewers. All of them unambiguously indicate a series of key flaws and shortcomings of the work. These include, and are not limited to, (a) the degree of novelty of the work, i.e., the way the work, which is based on known techniques, can provide novel advancements; (b) the lack of appropriate framing of the study in the context of the modern literature; (c) the lack of relevant conclusions stemming from the results and the way these can be considered as elements of innovation with respect to what is already available in the literature; (d) the nature of the work, which is leaning towards a case study; and (e) a proper and robust/convincing uncertainty quantification. With specific reference to the latter point, I am the one raising it, because while the authors discuss uncertainty, they do not appear to quantify it so that it is not clear how it can propagate to their conclusions/results. Now, my personal idea is that the manuscript is in need of a series of revisions which truly go beyond the concept of major revisions. As such, my decision would be to release the work with its current and scope and to suggest that, if the authors still wish to submit it, they can do so, but as an entirely new submission. This said, and given the history of the manuscript, I would be willing to give the authors a very last opportunity to revise their work through a series of major revisions. In case they are willing to do so, it must be clear that (a) the revised manuscript will undergo an additional very thorough round of reviews, (b) there is no guarantee that it will finally be accepted, and (c) in case the reviewers are not fully satisfied the manuscript will not be given an additional opportunity to be revised and will be released.

While the reviewers are recognizing that the work has improved, there are still a set of major concerns which have been brought forward. Given the seriousness with which the authors have worked on the current revisions, I am willing to give them this very last opportunity. All of the comments must be convincingly addressed, including the need to shorten the type of results and material to be included. The authors need to clarify unambiguously the relevance of all the material here included. Consistent with what I wrote in my previous assessment, in case the authors do not fully satisfy the reviewers I will then recommend releasing the manuscript with its current content and scope.

Following the Reviewer's evaluation, I find the manuscript acceptable for HESS.