I have received the reports of two referees and thank the authors for their detailed responses to the referees’ comments (a third referee did not provide their report in time). Based on these reviews and my own reading of the manuscript, I find that the paper may be of scientific interest to HESS readers, but considerable improvements must be made.
Both referees have indicated that the scientific approach and methods need substantial clarification, and that the presentation quality (results, conclusions, figures) can be improved. They have both requested to review the paper again after corrections have been made, and I consider that is a fair request.
I would therefore like to invite the authors to upload a revised manuscript for further review by both referees, incorporating the proposed changes and additions, and making further modifications where they see fit. I recommend that the authors carefully address the referees’ comments where appropriate, providing full information on the methodology/model setup, the assumptions, and the limitations/implications of the methodological choices in the revised paper.
I agree with the authors that it is unnecessary to provide the specific details on GIS/SWMM software use, but find that it is reasonable to expect clarification of any relevant jargon.

I look forward to receiving the revised manuscript.

Best Regards,
Louise Slater

Dear Authors,

The revised paper was re-reviewed by a new referee (another referee unfortunately did not submit their report on time; hence the delay).

Based on my own reading of the revised manuscript and of this new review, I believe that the manuscript would benefit from useful improvements suggested by the reviewer.
In particular, the paper would benefit from (1) a quantitative comparison of the 6 model outputs with observed flows; and (2) streamlining the manuscript (e.g. by reducing/removing content that is already published elsewhere, and providing a more critical assessment of the model ‘accuracy’).

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,
Louise Slater

Dear Authors,
I recognise that considerable efforts have been made to improve the manuscript in light of somewhat contradictory reviews (regarding the length and level of detail required).
However, despite some of these contradictions, I do believe that the revisions were important and have notably improved the manuscript, by clarifying many details.
The relocation of methodological details under an Appendix (as Supplemental Information) is a good idea.
Therefore, I am pleased to recommend publication of this manuscript in HESS, pending any final adjustments that the authors wish to make.
With best regards,
Louise Slater