Please revise the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments.

Please revise the manuscript based on the comments below.

1. comments in Report #1: Please make sure that stability is defined as L/z, not z/L in the manuscript.
Minor correction on line 268:
For neutral boundary layer flow L/z_M is infinite instead of 0. Perhaps it is better to specify z_m/L=0 for neutral, z_m/L=1 for stable and z_M/l=-1 for unstable.

2. Please moderate the claims that BLDFM does not rely on assumptions or has no restrictions to turbulence regimes:
The manuscript repeatedly emphasizes that BLDFM does not rely on asymptotic assumptions or estimates, and that it has no restrictions to certain turbulence regimes. This is too broad as currently phrased. BLDFM avoids some of the assumptions required to derive analytical closed-form footprint solutions, such as the slender-plume approximation. However, the model still relies on a steady-state Reynolds-averaged advection–diffusion equation, K-theory closure, horizontally homogeneous mean wind and diffusivity profiles that depend only on height, prescribed lateral boundary treatment, and a turbulence closure currently based on MOST.

3. Please distinguish more clearly between solver verification and model validation/evaluation:
The analytical constant-coefficient test case is a useful and appropriate verification test. It demonstrates that the numerical method can reproduce a known analytical solution under idealized conditions. The convergence analysis is also useful for assessing numerical behaviour. However, these tests do not constitute validation of the physical footprint model under realistic atmospheric conditions.

4. Please clarify the current scope of the turbulence-closure implementation:
The manuscript highlights the modularity of the framework and the possibility of using higher-order closures, measured profiles, or LES-derived profiles. This is an attractive feature. However, the actual demonstrations in the manuscript appear to rely on MOST with Businger–Dyer relationships and isotropic eddy diffusivity. Higher-order closures are described as future work.

Please separate demonstrated model capabilities from potential future capabilities. If the current code already supports alternative closure inputs, please demonstrate this with at least one example or provide explicit documentation. Otherwise, claims about closure generality should be toned down and stated as a design feature rather than a validated capability.

5. Several figures use colour maps or contour colours that appear to rely strongly on hue differences. Please check all figures with a colour-blindness simulator and revise the colour schemes if necessary. In addition, please consider using perceptually uniform and colour-vision-deficiency-friendly scientific colour maps, adding contour labels, or varying line styles so that the results remain interpretable without relying solely on colour.