Dear Dr. Lim,

I have now received reports from two reviewers. In general they are satisfied with the revised manuscript. One reviewer provided a few minor comments as attached below. Please consider them carefully when preparing a revision.

Regards,

Po-Lun

*****

I commend the authors for their comprehensive revisions that have acted to greatly improve the manuscript and have highlighted the value of the sound science performed, presenting a foundation for further work to follow on from what was done here. Below are a few technical corrections and one more point (#2) that needs to be clarified.

1) When discussing the Best Number, need to use a different variable to represent it because “X” is already being used to represent hydrometeor species. Maybe a Greek Chi would work.
2) The new quantitative statements on Lines 346-348 and 352-356 appear to be erroneous in some way. In lines 346-348, you state that surface graupel increases in WDM6_PD relative to WDM6_PD (by 124%), but then go on to stay that domain-averaged graupel amount is 0.64 mm in WDM6_FD and 0.51 mm in WDM6_PD, which would indicate a decrease in graupel for WDM6_PD relative to WDM6_FD. Similarly, on lines 352-356, you state that surface snow decreases significantly (by 92%) in WDM6_PD, but then state that domain-averaged snow amount is 0.77 mm in WDM6_FD and 0.84 mm in WDM6_PD, which would indicate an increase; then for graupel, you say it increases by 121% in WDM6_PD, but then say that domain-averaged graupel is 0.21 mm in WDM6_FD and 0.18 mm in WDM6_PD, which would indicate a decrease. So something is wrong here unless I’m misunderstanding the interpretation.
3) Line 451: I think “hights” should be “highlights”
4) Line 57: Picky semantics again, but P3 predicts the rime mass fraction and rime density, but rime volume is prognostic, not predicted.