Please see the attached file with review comments.

Please see attachment for review comments.

The topic of the text is interesting and worth sharing. I can also imagine that, given that drought is indeed somewhat more difficult to pinpoint as an event, storyline-type of thinking may be appropriate. Having said that, I do think that this text is not ready for publication yet. My reasons to suggest this assessment are a few.

1. The appropriateness of the approach is claimed, but hardly explained and/or compared with other approaches. Why can the extensive modelling approach add to the baseline method? Why would it be needed (or even allowed) to keep the storyline approach when running such models? The discussion might have revealed some of these issues, but paragraph 4 does not really engage with the climate stories/narratives as such.
2. The text actually reads much like a rather traditional text on climate scenarios. It might be that the use of the model enforces this, but I found it a little tricky to find the added value of storylines - or even the difference with other ways of sharing scenarios. I would think that the text could be much the same without ever mentioning the term "storyline analysis".
3. The method section seems to be incomplete. First, the method of storyline analytics is not discussed. How does one do it? Second, in the results section there seem to be several series of steps included that might need to be included in the method section.
4. The usefulness of the approach is defended by claiming that the results can be used in discussions with stakeholders, with some details on stakeholders ideas in section 4 (which for some reason is presented as discussion and not as results). Any evidence for that claim is not offered, as the stakeholder data come from a survey that was done before the storyline process. As such, we read two different parts: one on climate scenarios and one on survey results. I could also imagine that in a dialogue with stakeholders, modelling scenarios, whether they are shared in storyline format or otherwise, might change the stories themselves. This can only be checked after engaging with the stakeholders. I would be very interested in that aspect.

In conclusion, I would think that this text is a little unbalanced in terms of explaining the usefulness of the method, in terms of added value of the modelling, and in terms of the rather different section 3 and 4. Section 4 does seem to miss the point on discussing results from Section 3 anyway. The storyline itself reads like a standard climate scenario explanation, which is useful, but necessarily new enough to be published. 

I attach a pdf with some handwritten comments. I am mainly concerned that throughout the paper the meaning, approach and added value of storyline analysis remains quite obscure.