We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and the constructive comments. In response, we have substantially revised the manuscript. We expanded the instrument and calibration information; provided more detailed descriptions of the sensitivity experiments, ERA5 inputs, scene-classification procedure, and sample sizes; and reorganized Section 3 to present the hydrometeor-sensitivity analyses more coherently. We also strengthened the model evaluation by introducing MonoRTM as a high-accuracy clear-sky radiative-transfer reference, revised the interpretation of potential error sources—particularly those associated with precipitation—and improved the figures, captions, and overall language. In addition, the processed O−B datasets used in the evaluation have been made publicly available.  

A complete point-by-point response, including each reviewer comment, our corresponding response, and the relevant revised manuscript text, is provided in the attached file entitled “Reply to Reviewer 1.pdf” All revisions described therein have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for the positive assessment of the manuscript and for raising the important methodological concern regarding the need for a high-accuracy radiative-transfer benchmark. To address this concern, we added MonoRTM clear-sky simulations as a reference in Figure 6. MonoRTM and ARMS-gb were driven by the same clear-sky ERA5 profiles and configured using the same GMR channel settings. For each channel, 256 monochromatic calculations across the nominal bandwidth were averaged to obtain channel-equivalent brightness temperatures. The two models produced closely matching channel-dependent clear-sky O−B baselines, with maximum differences of approximately 0.38 K at Yan’an and 0.30 K at Karamay. This agreement indicates that the ARMS-gb clear-sky radiative-transfer calculation is unlikely to be the dominant source of the persistent baseline departures. Nevertheless, uncertainties associated with instrument calibration, channel characterization, observation–ERA5 collocation, and the ERA5 atmospheric backgrounds cannot be uniquely separated by this comparison.

In addition, we expanded the instrument and calibration descriptions; provided further details on the sensitivity experiments, ERA5 inputs, scene-classification procedure, and sample sizes; and reorganized Section 3 to present the hydrometeor-sensitivity analyses more coherently. We also revised the discussion of potential error sources, updated the figures and captions, improved the overall clarity and readability of the manuscript, and made the processed O−B datasets used in the evaluation publicly available. A complete point-by-point response, including each reviewer comment, our corresponding response, and the relevant revised manuscript text, is provided in the accompanying file entitled “Reply to Reviewer 2.” All corresponding changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.