After reading the manuscript and the 2 review reports, I noticed that there are some conflicting suggestions, mainly about the structure of the manuscript. Reviewer #1 agrees with the structure, while Reviewer #2 advices to improve it. After reading the manuscript, I think the general structure of the manuscript is OK, although here and there some minor improvements can be made (see specific suggestions both reviewers). However, I also noticed that the scope of the manuscript is not so clear, which might led to the problems that reviewer #2 experienced. Also to me, it is not entirely clear what the scope of the paper is. Is it the development of a new model (then also better explain the differences with existing models and why those ones are not good enough)? Is it investigating the use of open data (what is so special about using open data? Closed or open source, the data in it self is not different right? and if so, please explain why it's special)? Or is it finding the main drivers of ET-partitioning? Or something else? Please be more specific in the final paper. This main objective can also be emphasized in the title of the manuscript.

Furthermore, I do agree with the authors to ignore the model comparison as suggested by Reviewer #1. However, note that this request likely came from an unclear study scope.

Lastly, I do agree with the suggestion of reviewer#1 to change the catchments names to more descriptive ones. And also carefully check the units, because some errors exists e.g.,:
- P4L5: ET is here in m/s (and not mm/d, otherwise multiply equation with 1000 and 86400s)
- Eq 2-4: mixing micro-mol (A) with mol (Cair) is rather dangerous in empirical equations.

Minor others:
-P6L7: what is the use of "mm=kg/m2"? Please use conversion through density of water/surface area
-P8L13: Qr=-S: How is this possible? Q has dimension L/T and S dimension L. So they can not be the same. Please add dt in equation.
-P9L14: How is it possible that rainfall interception is dependent on the dt?
-P9L19: is 100 iterations for a monte carlo simulation not too small?
-Fig 2: add xy-labels plus units
-Fig 3: change y-label into ET_mod, to be consistent with right hand side figure
-Table4: the units SWE is not mm/a as written in the caption. Please correct.

The manuscript has been significantly improved. Most points are addressed well, nonetheless some improvements still should be made:
* Title: I think i would be good to add 'boreal and peatland ecosystem to your title. Although you claim the model is also suitable for other ecosystems, you don't have any proof on this. Currently, the model is only tested for a boreal and peat land ecosystem.

* I think the manuscript would benefit from an English language check. Especially focus on articles.

* P4 L20: the units of the model are mm/day! Not mm

* Eq 1: Why do the authors suddenly use E for evaporation? Before they used ET. Furthermore, I recommend removing the dt, since you define ET in mm/day. And rho_w should be in the denominator.

* P5L1: the unit of L is J/kg

* P5L20: exp should not be in italic. This should be changed in throughout the manuscript. This also holds for ln, min, and max in equation form.