Dear Oksana and co-authors,

The manuscript is clearly written and I appreciate the changes that you made during the revision stage.

I believe that some of the authors are native English speakers. I would like them to check the whole manuscript. I am not a native English speaker, but my impression is that there several occasions where better formulations can/should be used.
* Lines 133, 279 are such examples.
* Often the article "the" is missing in front ouf nouns.
* https://www.diffen.com/difference/That_vs_Which
There are further issues I won't list. I strongly recommend to put a last effort in improving this aspect of the manuscript.

Further corrections:
* first equation on page 5: Shouldn't it be B-A in the last denominator?
* Caption of Fig. 3: use \citet, not \citep

Best wishes,
Simon

p.s.: Sorry for the delay. I made up my mind several days ago and typed my decision text in the form on the web page. It seems that I forgot to confirm my submission, then everything was lost and I wasn't aware of it until yesterday.

Dear Authors,

I am happy to accept your manuscript. It is written in a clear and concise manner. Hopefully it will have its share in advancing time-stepping methods.

Best wishes,
Simon