We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of our work and for highlighting the relevance of our results for constraining lightning-initiation modeling. We have carefully reviewed all edits and comments in the attached PDF. All suggested corrections, clarifications, and improvements will be incorporated into the revised manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which helps strengthen both the clarity and applicability of the study.

We appreciate the editor’s detailed review and the opportunity to clarify our compliance with the GMD Code and Data Policy.

CORSIKA is not authored by us and is not legally redistributable. It is a licensed simulation framework maintained and distributed exclusively by the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). As such, third-party publication of the CORSIKA source code is prohibited.

In accordance with GMD policy in such situations, our manuscript already contains the exact CORSIKA version, the complete input cards, and CORSIKA output files.

These components fully enable any researcher with legitimate access to the CORSIKA framework to replicate all simulations.

We also note that CORSIKA is one of the most widely used and internationally recognized Monte-Carlo tools in cosmic-ray physics and high-energy particle physics. Its role as a reference simulation framework for the global CR community is well established. Many major experiments (e.g., KASCADE, Pierre Auger Observatory, LHAASO, TA, IceTop) rely on CORSIKA as their standard comparison and calibration tool. We will add additional references to foundational CORSIKA publications to make this clear in the revised manuscript. All numerical data used in the figures and tables have already been deposited in an openly accessible repository. The manuscript includes the repository link and DOI of TGE events allowing downloading multivariate information on particle fluxes and climate conditions, and the repository contains everything required to reproduce the results.

We will add to MS the following information:

The CORSIKA simulation framework used in this study (version 7.400) is a licensed scientific code developed and maintained at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). According to its license conditions, the CORSIKA source code cannot be redistributed or archived by third parties; therefore, it cannot be deposited in an external public repository. The code is available free of charge for scientific use directly from the official KIT distribution portal (Heck et al., 1998). CORSIKA is one of the most widely used and internationally recognized Monte Carlo models in the cosmic-ray and high-energy particle-physics communities, serving as a reference simulation framework for major experiments such as KASCADE, the Pierre Auger Observatory, the Telescope Array, LHAASO, and IceTop. Its status as a community-standard tool enables consistent comparison of results across different research groups and atmospheric conditions.

To ensure reproducibility, all user-provided components required to run the simulations—complete input cards, atmospheric profiles, and the exact electric-field configurations—areavailable to users. The post-processing and analysis procedures applied to the simulation output are documented in the manuscript and therefore do not require separate archival. These materials define the simulation environment sufficiently for any researcher with legal access to CORSIKA to reproduce the results presented in this study.

Thanks for the comments and corrections. All details mentioned: relation to measurements, elongation of electric fields on different sites, etc., will be included in the final version of the MS.

1. Units and consistency (kV/m vs kV/cm)
   
   We agree that the mixed use of kV/m and kV/cm may confuse. In the revised manuscript, we will use a single unit consistently throughout the text, figures, and tables. Where necessary, numerical values will be converted accordingly.
2. Simulation setup and uncertainties
   
   We appreciate the suggestion to clarify the simulation configuration. In the revised Methods section, we will:
   
   – specify the vertical extent of the uniform electric-field layer used for each site;
   
   – explicitly state the assumed lateral extent of the field (uniform in a cylinder around the shower axis, as used in CORSIKA configuration);
   
   – note the statistical uncertainty of the particle fluxes in the key figures (e.g. Fig. 6) and mention how many primaries were simulated;
   
   – add a short remark on the sensitivity to the seed spectrum. In particular, we will state that modest changes in the low-energy seed spectrum affect the absolute fluxes but do not shift the derived avalanche thresholds within the uncertainties, consistent with earlier RREA studies.
3. Link to observations
   
   We appreciate this important suggestion. In the revised Discussion, we will add references to simulation-derived thresholds and typical atmospheric electric fields inferred during TGEs at high-mountain stations (Aragats, Lomnický Štít). This will emphasize that the required Ez values from our simulations are compatible with the strongest AEFs measured during intensive particle flux enhancements and help explain why RREA development is only observed during the most electrified phases of thundercloud evolution.
4. Minor typographical corrections
   
   We will correct all noted typographical issues, including:
   
   – “Mendelay” → “Mendeley”,
   
   – removal of the duplicated DOI (10.17632/8gtdbch59z),
   
   – and other small formatting inconsistencies.

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. In our study, the relative air density n(h) was derived using the standard exponential atmosphere, which is widely employed in RREA modeling and in most previous theoretical works. This approach provides a consistent way to compare threshold fields across altitudes and allows direct comparison with published parametrizations of the RREA e-folding length.

We agree that temperature variations, especially inside real thunderclouds, can modify the density profile and therefore slightly shift the effective threshold field. However, the magnitude and sign of these temperature deviations are highly case-dependent and generally not available with the vertical resolution required for event-by-event modeling. Because our goal here is to present baseline threshold estimates for comparison with CORSIKA simulations at fixed altitudes, the standard atmosphere provides a stable and reproducible reference.

At the same time, we acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion. We have added a short remark in the manuscript noting that, for detailed modeling under specific thunderstorm conditions, particular TGE events, the threshold field could be further refined by incorporating measured or modeled temperature profiles when available. This refinement is outside the scope of the present work but can be implemented in future event-specific simulations.

We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of the manuscript and for the helpful and constructive comments.

1. The reference to Fig. 4 in Ambrožová et al. (2023) is indeed incorrect. The correct reference is Fig. 3. This will be corrected in the revised manuscript.
2. Line 82 – EXPACS description and citation
   
   We agree with the reviewer. EXPACS is an Excel-based program rather than a web calculator, and the citation in line 82 is incorrect. The reference will be corrected accordingly. In addition, we will update the citations to comply with the EXPACS publication rules by citing both:
   • Sato (2015), PLOS ONE, 10(12): e0144679
   • Sato (2016), PLOS ONE, 11(8): e0160390
     
     The incorrect citation “(Sato, 2018)” will be removed.
3. Use of RREA vs “RRE avalanche”
   
   We agree that the terminology should be consistent. The abbreviation RREA is defined in the text and is the standard term in the literature. All occurrences of “RRE avalanche” (including in figure captions) will be replaced with “RREA” throughout the manuscript.
4. Units of atmospheric electric field (kV/m vs kV/cm)
   
   We agree that the mixed use of units is confusing. In the revised manuscript, we will adopt a single unit consistently for atmospheric electric field strength.
5. Figures 1–4: suggestion to combine into a multi-panel figure
   
   We appreciate this suggestion and agree that it improves clarity and compactness. In the revised version, Figures 1–4 will be combined into a single multi-panel figure (Fig. 1a–d), with a unified caption describing the common quantity (RREA development) and panel-specific conditions indicated clearly.
6. Formatting of subscripts (Rc, Eth, Ez, etc.)
   
   We agree and thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Subscripts will be consistently formatted throughout the manuscript for all relevant quantities (Rc, Eth, Ez, etc.), including in the main text, equations, figure labels, and captions.