These are technical corrections, but experience has taught me that the editor needs to check any changes to the manuscript that they really would like to see implemented! Hence I have opted for minor revision, as this requires editor review.

On the whole, I think the paper is great, and I am looking forward to seeing further DCMIP papers.

In relation to the structure, most of the sections deal with the differences between the models, organised by model. Section 3, however, is structured by grid type. It is not possible (for me at least) in every case to easily trace which model uses which grid. Would it be possible, therefore, in the sub-sections of section 2, to cite the subsection of section 3 which describes the grid? Also make sure that the model(s) which use the grid are named in the relevant subsection of section 3.

Section 3.1
"This grid is employed by the UK Met Office (Davies et al., 2005; Wood et al., 2014)."
This seems a very strange sentence. Many models use a lat-lon grid! One of the references seems to be related to non-hydrostatic calculations at the Met Office, the other one to the regular dynamical core of the UM. Do they have a non-hydrostatic model? Anyway - some qualification/additional explanation is required here.