Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your detailed and constructive review. We have addressed each of the three points individually below;

1. Fair Comparison: We agree that isolating the impact of a specific model setting requires changing only one factor at a time. This principle is applied in the second half of the manuscript via controlled sensitivity tests within the 3km configuration. The first half, however, is not intended to as a “fair” attribution-style intercomparison; rather it provides contextual evaluation across two broad axes – model framework (MOM5 vs MOM6) and resolution within MOM6 – with observations used as an external reference. We will revise the Methods to make these objectives explicit and add a comparison matrix summarising the key differences among configurations. We also agree that dependence of EAC03K on the parent boundary forcing should be quantified; we have therefore completed an additional 3km simulation forced by OM2-01 boundaries and will include a targeted assessment of sensitivity to boundary forcing in the revised manuscript.
2. MLE Parameterisation: We would like to clarify that the MLE parameterisation is indeed active in the 3km configuration: when the parameterisation is switched off or its parameter value (frontal length scale) is varied, the model exhibits a clear change in behaviour, most notably in the long-term mean and variability of mixed-layer depth (consistent with the expected restratification effect). We agree that MLE parameterisations are typically evaluated in coarser, non-submesoscale-permitting models; however, the objective of this section is different – namely, to test whether the parameterisation remains necessary (or becomes largely redundant) at 3km resolution where submesoscale processes are partially resolved. We will revise the manuscript to make this objective explicit and to frame these experiments as a resolution-regime sensitivity test rather than a validation of MLE performance in a setting where its necessity is already established.
3. Surface Momentum Flux: MOM6 computes the wind stress online using the relative winds (U₁₀-u_s) which explicitly includes wind-current interaction. We thank the reviewer for highlighting this ambiguity in the manuscript, and will revise this to document the wind-stress formulation explicitly and briefly discuss its implications for interpreting SSH variance/EKE comparisons.

We thank the reviewer again for these constructive comments, and we believe that the clarifications, restructuring, and additional sensitivity analysis outlined above will substantially improve the transparency, interpretability, and overall robustness of the revised manuscript.

Dear Juan, 

Thank you for flagging the Code and Data Policy issue, and apologies for the earlier non-compliance. 

To resolve this, we have now archived the exact source code used in this study (MOM6, SIS2, FMS, and coupling components) in a long-term repository on Zenodo. The permanent DOI is: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18149344.

We will revise the manuscript to update the "Code and Data Availability" section to cite this Zenodo DOI as the archival record of the model source code. Any remaining GitHub links will be retained only as supplementary development/documentation references (not as the archive of record for this paper).  

Kind regards, 

John Reilly

Dear Reviewer 2, 

Thank you for these insightful and constructive comments - the following will address each main point specifically;

1. Mercator Grid: We will revise the manuscript to explictly state that all model configurations use a Mercator horizontal grid and add the suggested clarifying text in the methods section. 

2. ALE Discussion: We agree that the current wording overstates the advantages of ALE in our z-star configurations. In the revised manuscript we will rephrase this section to more accurately reflect the use of ALE in our context. 

3. Relative vs. direct wind forcing: We appreciate this important point. We will add a clear description of the wind-stress formulation used (relative winds) and include a dedicated discussion of its implications for mesoscale kinetic energy, frontal/eddy strength, and interpretation of SSH/EKE metrics in the data atmosphere context. We agree that additional simulations using direct winds would provide a valuable sensitivity test however given the already broad scope of the present manuscript, we will defer this to a follow-on study/experiment and note this as a limitation in the present work. 

Thank you again for your careful review and for improving the clarity and robustness of the manuscript. 

Kind regards, 

John Reilly