This manuscript evaluates precipitation and temperature from WRF-SAAG, CR2MET, and RF-MEP against in-situ stations across continental Chile. The topic is important and relevant. Below are my major and minor comments.

Major Comments:

1. Since WRF-SAAG is not expected to reproduce specific events, I am unclear about the motivation for this evaluation. Is WRF-SAAG typically used as forcing for hydrological models to obtain hydrological simulations? If so, is this recommended practice? If not, the value of evaluating individual events is limited. In that case, comparing climatological characteristics across datasets might be more meaningful.
2. As this is an evaluation study, the manuscript would benefit from clearer take-home messages. For example: Which dataset should be preferred under certain conditions or in specific regions? Are there areas where none of the datasets are recommended?
3. Figures 3–5: Consider presenting KGE values as boxplots, since the authors mention medians of the KGE frequently. The spatial maps make it difficult to assess the median.
4. Line 285: When precipitation events > 1 mm/day are considered, CR2MET performs best overall, but for thresholds > 5, > 10, and > 20 mm/day, RF-MEP performs best. Could this pattern be influenced by the precipitation distribution? For example, are events between 1–5 mm/day dominant when precipitation events > 1 mm/day? If so, it might cause RF-MEP’s superior performance at higher intensities to be diluted when all events > 1 mm/day are included.
5. Line 262: Please specify the formula used to estimate PET and list the variables involved.

Minor Comments:

1. Abstract: WRF-SAAG data are available until 2021. Why was the evaluation restricted to 2001–2018?
2. Line 120: Consider adding polygons to the maps to delineate the four geographical units, which would help international readers.
3. The first part of the abstract reads like that WRF-SAAG was evaluated against CR2MET and RF-MEP, but in fact all three datasets were compared against in-situ observations. Please revise for clarity.
4. Line 135: What do “daily observations” refer to? Are they discharge (Q) and precipitation (P)? Does this also include temperature?
5. Line 210: It seems the reference should be “1b (1c)” instead of “1c (1d).”
6. Line 255: The DEM data should be introduced in the Data section.
7. Equation 8: Please clarify what Q and 1/Q represent in the KGE′ formulation.
8. Line 220: When referring to precipitation events > 1 mm/day, do these include events exceeding 5, 10, and 20 mm/day, or are they limited to events between 1–5 mm/day? Please clarify.
9. Line 297: This section appears to discuss only summer results. Why are “all seasons” mentioned here?

Publisher’s note: the supplement to this comment was edited on 8 October 2025. The adjustments were minor without effect on the scientific meaning.

Please see my comments attached.