The paper has received comments from 5 reviewers, which in itself already confirms there is an interest in the topic the paper presents. Having said that, the novelty and additional value compared to previous work, and in particular the recent paper by de Vos that also presents a QC approach for PWS needs to be better assessed and clarified (see also comments in her review). All reviewers provided valuable recommendations on how to further improve the paper, which I encourage the authors to address, as indicated in their replies to the reviewers.
Furthermore, I strongly recommend separating the Discussion and Conclusions, such that a separate set of conclusions is presented that are drawn in this paper. At present, since discussion and conclusions are mixed, this remains fuzzy.
The discussion can definitely be expanded, emphasizing more clearly the novel insights obtained from the presented method compared to previous studies and highlighting potential for application. e.g: what network densities are recommended at minimum, how does network density relate to the (spatial and temporal) of events that can be captured.
Finally, I recommend the authors revisit the abstract, which i found hard to follow, e.g. "their temporal order" (this refers to rainfall observations, but that is not directly clear in the context), "informative measurements" (what makes a measurement "informative"?), "percentiles of the PWS network" (what percentiles, exactly..?), "the distributions functions which were interpolated" (hard to follow without context..).
The revised paper will be subject to further review by reviewers and editor.

Dear authors,
Two reviewers who recommended major revisions for the earlier version of your manuscript have reviewed the revised version. One of the reviewers still has substantial critical comments and suggestions for improvement of the paper, in particular its scientific and presentation quality. You are invited to have a look at the comments of both reviewers and address them in a new revised version of the manuscript, that will be subject to further review by editor and referees.

The reviewer has taken extensive time for a third review of your manuscript and concludes that the paper has improved but also that there are still many typos and sentences that need to be clarified. Please have a look at the comments, especially those related to conclusion and justification. You are invited to prepare a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the comments and corrects the typos. The revised manuscript will be subject to editor review.

Thank you for your replies to the author comments and modifications you made in the revised version of the paper. You have addressed the comments adequately and provided explanation in some cases where you preferred to stick to your original version. After checking the replies and revised version of the manuscript, I consider it ready for publication as is.