The authors of this paper implement an extended Budyko framework for high-elevation catchments to understand the changes in water balance characteristics. Additionally, they tried to isolate the major drivers of monthly runoff variability in the region.

The overall analysis was sound and merits discussion. However, there are significant issues with the general writing of the manuscript, with many convoluted statements. My primary concerns are listed below.

Specific Comments

1. The abstract needs to be more concise. The statements feel overcrowded and convoluted. Please try to split long sentences for better readability.
2. How will the phase transition of precipitation (from snow to rain), influenced by a warming climate observed over high-elevation regions, affect runoff characteristics? A brief discussion on this will give more context to the results presented. Also, what about any potential glacier cover in the region?
3. Lines 65 to 70: Add references supporting these statements.
4. Line 90: The line should be “A more detailed understanding of intra-annual runoff characteristics...”
5. The range of altitudes in the basin has been stated multiple times in the manuscript. However, the source/reference for this information is not mentioned properly.
6. Section 2.1 has many convoluted sentences. Consider simplifying them. For instance, Lines 153 to 157 could be better explained with an equation rather than text. Lines 238 to 242 are not readable.
7. Why is the study period chosen as 2002 to 2016? Were there any significant changes that happened in the region? Please clarify.
8. Some of the sub-basins chosen are nested basins. It will be good to mention them and their characteristics in the study area section.
9. Line 145: It is stated that the implementation of the extended Budyko framework is explained in Sect. 2.2. However, Sect. 2.2 in the manuscript is about the study area and data. Also, starting Section 2 with Study Area and Data would be better, and then move to the methodology.
10. Line 248: Check the equation number. Is it 10 or 11?
11. Line 281: The table number should be S2.
12. Include elevation information of the outlet stations in Table S2.
13. The labels of the sub-basins are not clear in Figure 2. Consider making them bold/bigger. Also, provide information on the source for the DEM and snow depth data in the figure. Labelling the three figures as (a), (b), and (c) and providing a proper caption for each will bring more clarity.
14. Figure 3 indicates consistent negative values for total storage change across all the basins. Explain this.
15. A few new results are introduced in the Discussion section, which should ideally be in the results section. For instance, the total runoff, snowmelt runoff, and the runoff contribution from reservoirs in Figure 9 are not mentioned before. Additionally, Figure 9 shows a time period from 1980 to 2017, which is beyond what was mentioned in the previous results obtained from the study. Please clarify.
16. Lines 556-558: A hypothesis on other parts of the world may be made in the discussion part. Or this can be stated as a possible future work.

This paper presents an evaluation of the monthly water balance using an extended Budyko framework to analyze the contribution of snow storage to runoff seasonality. The topic is timely and offers valuable insights into the understanding of hydrological processes. The manuscript is well written, with a clear description of the methodology and a solid explanation of the results, especially an additional experiment incorporating reservoir data to validate the Budyko approach. The hypotheses employed and limitations of Budyko framework is also discussed. I have only minor comments regarding the paper structure, which I hope will help improve the overall readability of this manuscript.

General comment:

To my understanding, the idea of including nested catchments is related to identifying the influence of hydropower. If this is correct, I would suggest clarifying this when introducing the nested catchments in the study area section. This will help readers understand the rationale for this design early.

Line-by-line Comments:

Line 29, “increasingly” here better be “increase”.

Line 31, consider rephrasing “other world regions” to “other global regions.”

Line 99, missing a period here at the end of the sentence.

Line 165, Figure 1 needs a more detailed explanation. While it is introduced as an overview in Line 149, the description lacks details on its components (e.g., Part 1, Part 2). I recommend providing a brief explanation of the figure in the text, highlighting how it corresponds to the subsections under 2.1. This would make the structure easier to follow.

Line 235, regarding the section on cross-correlation, partial correlation is also discussed in the results (Line 355). It would improve consistency to include a brief introduction to partial correlation in the methods section here.

Line 239 to 241, the sentences here appear incomplete or unclear. Please revise for clarity and ensure complete sentence structure.

Line 324, Figure 3, there is a purple vertical line at the right border of the figure, which seems unintended. Please check and correct if necessary.

Line 355, “downtrending” here seems likely to be “detrending”? As noted in the previous comment, it would be helpful to move this information to the Methods section and include a brief explanation.

Line 399, here seems a typo error before “degree of correlation.”

Line 435, typo error here.

Line 487, typo error here too.

Line 571, the phrase "less than a month", does this mean "concurrent" or does it also include a "one-month lag"? Please clarify.