• Detailed comparisons of the simulations against radar observations have been conducted for hail presence within storms using both the original and modified schemes. However, it is also crucial to examine the corresponding surface hail distribution for both rain and hail events, as accurate surface hail prediction, including hail size and amounts are vital for operational weather forecasting.
• According to dual-polarization radar observations using the HCA, no hail was identified throughout the entire lifespan of the three heavy rainstorms. These findings contradict the simulated rainstorms, which showed a large amount of hail particles even with the modified Milbrandt scheme. Please provide further details on this inconsistency.
• The graupel-to-hail conversion in the revised scheme requires a substantial amount of supercooled water collected by graupel at one model time step, specifically at least 1.25 times the mass of graupel particles. This criterion may be too stringent, which explains why it mitigates hail overprediction within rainstorms. However, while hail can be produced within the hailstorms, the simulated radar reflectivity and hail distributions are underestimated compared to radar observations. Additionally, the integration time step also influences the graupel-to-hail conversion, which is also not physically reasonable.
• The discussions in the last two paragraphs of Section 3 lack clarity. For instance, while both thermal buoyancy and dynamic vertical pressure gradient force are important for the vertical motion, only the buoyancy term is investigated.

My comments are documented in the attached pdf file.