The reviewers provide useful suggestions on how to improve this manuscript. Based on the responses in the discussion phase, it seems to me that the authors will be able to address most of the comments. However, there is the fundamental issue raised by reviewer#1 whether this manuscript fits best in HESS or whether a journal like GMD might be a better fit. Here I am less convinced by the reply of the authors. This response mainly states that one of the chief editors had agreed to consider this a technical note for HESS but does not provide much on why this decision was taken.
Besides the argument in the response, I would also like to ask the authors to clarify in the text why this paper fits into HESS as a technical note. While I sympathize with the arguments of the authors, re-reading the info on https://www.hydrology-and-earth-system-sciences.net/about/manuscript_types.html one has to admit that the reviewer has point here.

Thanks for your careful revisions and sorry for the delay on my side. I have now read your manuscript again and agree with the reviewers that you have done a good job of improving the manuscript. I noticed a number of smaller language issues, as partly indicated by one of the reviewers. However, if ALL co-authors will read and edit the manuscript in one more round, I am confident that these issues will be solved.