The authors present a novel framework for selecting physical parameterization schemes within the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. The study proposes a "dynamic weighting" approach that assigns importance to output variables based on two statistical criteria: simulation accuracy (Mean Relative Error) and sensitivity to physical processes (Coefficient of Variation of the absolute error). This method is applied to two climatically distinct regions in China and compared against a traditional equal-weighting strategy. The authors further validate their approach using an independent extreme weather year.

The manuscript is generally well-structured and addresses a relevant issue in regional climate modeling: the subjectivity involved in evaluating multivariate model performance. The proposed tool offers a potential pathway toward more reliable, data-driven parameterization selection and uncertainty reduction. However, the methodology requires further justification regarding the mathematical formulation of the weights, the sequential selection methodology, and the physical interpretation of the results. I recommend a moderate revision before possible publication in GMD, addressing these points detailed below.

General Comments

• The authors employ the Softmax function to normalize statistical metrics into weights, a mathematical choice that inherently tends to polarize values. While the authors state this is to "amplify the impact of key limiting variables," this exponential scaling risks excessively penalizing variables with only marginally higher errors or sensitivities, potentially reducing a multivariate evaluation to a quasi-univariate one dominated by a single variable like precipitation. To establish the scientific robustness of this approach, it is essential to provide a justification for selecting Softmax over linear normalization techniques and to include a sensitivity analysis to ensure the method does not artificially skew the evaluation.
• The study selects specific individual years to represent the climatological mean based on 30-year averages. However, relying on a single year for parameterization optimization may inadvertently overfit the model to specific synoptic patterns unique to that year, rather than capturing the region's broader climatological variability.The authors need to provide detailed assessment methods and quantitative analysis to prove that the selected year is statistically representative across all assessment variables, rather than merely representing the average state. Furthermore, a discussion regarding the potential biases introduced by single-year optimization versus multi-year validation is necessary to contextualize the universality of the selected schemes.
• The authors employed an ordered selection strategy. As discussed in the relevant section (lines 571-579), this approach inevitably introduces path dependence.The optimal choice for the initial process inevitably constrains the performance landscape for subsequent choices, suggesting that the final combination likely represents a local optimum dependent on the arbitrary order of evaluation rather than a global optimum. The authors should critically discuss the theoretical implications of this limitation and, if possible, justify the specific order chosen.
• While the manuscript presents comprehensive statistical evidence, it lacks sufficient analysis of the underlying physical mechanisms driving these results. The authors are encouraged to discuss the physical mechanisms of the optimal parameterization schemes by linking the method's characteristics with the regional climatic features. This will enhance the theoretical depth of the paper.
• The discussion suggests that the dynamic weighting method is transferable to multi-model evaluations. However, weighting distinct models with structural differences presents different challenges compared to selecting parameterization schemes within the unified WRF framework. The authors should expand this section to clarify how the methodology would be adapted for multi-model ensembles, specifically addressing how it accounts for structural uncertainties versus parameter perturbations.

Specific Comments

• P1, L13: "an objective dynamic weighting method" — I advise caution with the word "objective." The choice of the Softmax function, the choice of the variable set (7 variables), and the choice of the evaluation order are all subjective decisions made by the researchers. "Data-driven" or "Performance-based" might be more accurate terms.
• P2, L43: "To evaluate the overall performance of the model (Gleckler et al., 2008), proposed..." should be corrected to "To evaluate the overall performance of the model, Gleckler et al. (2008) proposed...".
• P2, L64: "total of over 14.5 million possible combinations" — While mathematically true, many of these are physically invalid or incompatible. It would be better to cite a realistic number of feasible combinations if possible, or acknowledge this is a theoretical upper bound.
• P4, L114: "we will conduct" should be changed to "we conducted" or "we conduct" to align with standard academic tense for methodology.
• P5, L140: "Northwest of China" should be corrected to "Northwest China" for consistency.
• P7, L197: "suffering from severe flooding" should be changed to "experiencing severe flooding" or "affected by severe flooding" to maintain an objective academic tone.
• P13, L324: "assigned on the basis of" is wordy and should be condensed to "assigned based on" to improve flow.
• P24, L565: "simplifies the complex multiplicative combinations... into additive combinations." This phrasing is technically incorrect. The physical processes are coupled non-linearly (multiplicative nature). The step-wise selection method treats them sequentially (additive nature of the process, not the physics). Please rephrase to avoid implying that the method changes the physical nature of the interactions.
• P25, L598: The sentence "...yields more accurate temperature and wind speed, the dynamic weighting scheme provides more accurate results..."The two clauses are tautological/redundant, making the sentence logically circular.
• Figure 2 and Figure 5: The x-axis represents discrete categories (Microphysics, PBL, etc.), yet the values are connected by lines. This implies continuity which does not exist. A bar chart or a scatter plot would be a more appropriate visualization for these weights to avoid misleading the reader.
• Figure 3(a) and Figure 6(a): The color scale for MIEI seems to show "normalized" values. It would be helpful to clarify in the caption what the normalization base is (e.g., normalized by the median of the ensemble?).

General Comments

In general, I consider that the manuscript addresses a relevant problem for the WRF modeling community, since the selection of physical parameterization schemes remains one of the main sources of uncertainty in regional atmospheric simulations. The proposed weighting strategy based on the performance of multiple variables is interesting and has the potential to contribute to a more comprehensive evaluation of model configurations.

However, I believe that some aspects could be strengthened to increase the scientific value of the study.

1. The manuscript would benefit from a deeper discussion of the physical interpretation of the selected parameterization schemes. Although the methodology successfully identifies the configurations that provide the best statistical performance, the discussion remains focused mainly on the evaluation metrics. It would be valuable to explain why the selected schemes may be physically suitable for the climatic and atmospheric characteristics of the analyzed regions. Such discussion would help readers understand whether the methodology is identifying parameterizations that are not only statistically optimal but also physically consistent with the dominant atmospheric processes.
2. The uncertainty analyzed in this study is associated with the selection of physical parameterization schemes. However, parameterization choice represents only one component of the overall uncertainty present in WRF simulations. Other factors, such as spatial resolution, domain configuration, land-use representation, topography, initial and boundary conditions, and spin-up time may also influence model performance. A brief discussion clarifying the specific scope of the proposed methodology and its relationship to other sources of uncertainty would strengthen the interpretation of the results.
3. The manuscript demonstrates differences among the evaluated parameterization combinations; however, it would be useful to discuss the practical implications of these differences from a meteorological perspective. In several cases, the statistical differences between competing configurations appear relatively small. Therefore, it would be interesting to discuss whether these improvements translate into a substantially better representation of the atmospheric processes of interest or whether they mainly reflect differences in the evaluation metrics. This would help readers better assess the practical significance of the proposed methodology.

Overall, I believe that the manuscript addresses an important topic and presents an interesting methodological contribution. Expanding the physical interpretation of the results and clarifying the scope of the uncertainty analysis would further strengthen the paper and improve its relevance for researchers and practitioners working with WRF.