I believe most reviewer comments have been addressed. However please review some comments from reviewer 2:

- Page 22, line 4: why using a Coulomb rheology?

The justification could appear in the text.

- Page 23: figure 2: Please discuss the discrepancy in the middle bottom panel

There is a discrepancy between the numerical and analytical solutions -- can this be explained?

- Figures 3 and 4: The figures are not clear enough. There are more line types in the plots than in the legend, the different colour are not explained.

The figure presentation should be improved. The figures make use of colour without explanation. The black and blue elements of the figures are unlabelled. It should be clarified which are the experimental values for comparison.

I also have the following comments:

- Abstract: The final two sentences now appear inconsistent with the revised text.
- Page 3 lines 2-5: The references to "community" efforts seem unnecessary here. This is referenced later at the bottom of page 4.
- Page 4 lines 29-32: Please avoid the use of the first person here. The final sentence is subjective and could be removed.
- Page 6 lines 20-22: Please add a justification or reference for the validity of this hypothesis.
- Page 8 line 10: Please add further details regarding the clipping.
- Tables 2, 3, 6, 7, 8: I find these very unclear. Please clarify how these should be interpreted -- it is unclear what is being set (parameter values?), particularly in table 3.
- There are references to a non-existent "appendix 13".
- Page 20 lines 20-23: Please clarify how the two Courant numbers are used. Are these used to bound the maximum timestep?
- Page 21 line 18, page 24 line 13: The use of a fixed timestep seems to conflict with the setting of a Courant number on page 20. Please clarify.
- There are a number of places which seem to refer to SedFoam-2.0 parameter values (e.g. page 24 lines 12, 16, page 26 line 15, page 31 line 15, table 10 caption). These are potentially confusing for readers unfamiliar with the details of the model configuration. Please clarify (e.g. "the pressure gradient is fixed by setting the model parameter gradPMEAN=100 kg m^{-2} s^{-2}").
- Figure 2: Please clarify (e.g. in the legend) which is the numerical solution from Aussillous et al. (2013).
- Page 27 line 26: "SUMA" etc does not match up with the labelling in table 9.
- Figure 5: The schematic is quite low resolution -- can this be improved?
- Page 31 line 12: esi should be capitalised.
- Page 35 lines 15-16: The final sentence could be removed, or at least avoid use of the first person.
- Tables 12, 13, and 14: Please improve the captions. The title "Greek Symbols" does not appear to be required.

Consistent with your response to the initial revision, please provide a link to a single archived version of the code on ZENODO.

Please address the reference to "Appendix 1" on page 11 -- does this refer to an external reference? This could also be clarified at the top of page 12.