Dear Authors,

Please provide a revised version of your manuscript according to your responses to the referee's comments. Please provide both a version with and without Track Changes, to facilitate identification of your changes. Also, please provide a point-by-point list of the referee comments including your replies AND the page/line number of your changes in the revised mansucript, again to facilitate identification of your changes.

Some additional comments from my side:
- I agree with M. Zappa that a sample of only 3 events is very limited, and too small to draw any general conclusions, e.g. on the best blending function (especially as it differs among the three analyzed events) or any statistical analysis of forecast performance in terms of hits/misses/false alarms. This should be stressed in the discussion/conclusion section, which needs to be more elaborated. Nevertheless, I think some of the methods you suggest (adaptation of the nowcasting rainfall volumes to those of the NWP) are very interesting and worth publication. As suggested by M. Zappa, this method innovation should be more prominently mentioned in abstract, discussion and conclusion and delineated to existing methods.
- Please also follow the suggestion by M. Zappa and include a map of the catchments showing the distributed model evaluation points, with colorcoding to indicate whether the points belong to the 15-50, 50-150 or 150-500 basin area class. This will faciliate interpretation of your RCRPS plots.
- Your performance evaluation is against discharge simulations based on radar observations. I think this is acceptable as a reference 'truth' for the distributed analysis, simply because you do not have distributed discharge observations. However, the reader also needs to get an idea of the realism of the entire forecast chain by comparison to the observed hydrograpahs. So in Figure 7, please also include the corresponding discharge observations and in the text include a discussion on the overall quality of the modeling chain. Readers will gain more confidence in your ranking of the different forecasting methods (NOWWC, NOWC VOL, NOWC Blend) if they are ranked similarly when compared to observed discharge.
- It seems to me that Figs 10 and 11 are just plotted, but not referred to in the text. Please do so at the appropriate places in section 4.3.

Yours sincerely,
Uwe Ehret

Done. There are some typos in the revised manuscript, but I am confident that the copy-editing will take care of that.

Yours sincerely, Uwe Ehret