Thanks for your elaborate answers to the referees' comments. Please go ahead and implement revisions as proposed in your response. The revised manuscript will be sent back to referees for further review.

Dear Authors,
The two referees who reviewed the revised manuscript are generally happy with the improvements made. Referee 1 raises a couple of comments that remain to be addressed.
A specific comment for the following points:
- title: the reviewer makes a nice title suggestion, consider changing accordingly.
- referee makes a comment about the radar plot and alternative figures you provided. I agree with the reviewer that radar plots are difficult to interpret and a different format would be preferred. Yet I had trouble locating the alternative figures A and B you are referring to in your response. Please check and consider an alternative format to the radar plots.

After reading the manuscript, your first discussion point keeps puzzling me.. Only 1 of the streamflow-generating events is asymmetric, yet asymmetry comes out as an important metric to explain variation in RC and lag time. I wonder how such regression results can be valid if the explanatory variable shows so little variability?
Quite a lot of papers have looked at this relation between rainfall spatial variability (storm position, movement, relative to the catchment and streamflow network), some of which you cite in the Introduction, yet it's worth putting your results in relation to the literature also in the Discussion part. The one paper you cite here is a modeling study, while there are several data-driven studies on the topic of "storm position and hydrologic response" that are more closely related to your study (see for instance work by J.A. Smith and his group).