The authors have improved the manuscript considerably. The current version is well written, well organized, and the collection of figures and tables has a very good logical flow. I have a final set of minor comments that should be very easy to address, and some editorial suggestions that will help the authors to put their manuscript in final form for publication.
1. In the response document, the authors have stated that, in their opinion, “all parameters are observable”, and therefore they have classified the SPHY parameters in Table 1 based on how easy/difficult to observe they are. On the other hand, the model description indicates that many of these parameters are associated to conceptual formulations (e.g. degree-day factors, recession coefficients, etc.) and, according to the text, they need to be calibrated (e.g. L444, L508 and elsewhere). I strongly encourage the authors to reconsider the classification provided in Table 1, describing those parameters that can only be determined through calibration as ‘free’.
2. Throughout the manuscript, the authors refer several times to ‘typical applications’. In my opinion, the applications described in the manuscript (section 3) are not necessarily ‘typical’ to hydrological model structures (which might not be designed for flood prediction, for instance) and any specific region of interest. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to refer these application as ‘example applications’, since they illustrate how flexible SPHY is to address different types of water-related problems.
3. I recommend the authors to avoid the use of the word ‘detailed’ for climate change impact studies (e.g. L22), since no detailed analyses are presented in this manuscript. Also, please add references in section 3.2 if climate change results are mentioned, but not included in any figure/table (e.g. end of L1089).
4. L1104: The authors indicate that ‘SPHY was run for 2000-2007’, but in the same paragraph (L1110-L1111) they indicate that Figure 8 shows simulation results for 2000-2008. Please clarify this, and also correct the caption of Figure 8 if necessary.
5. Section 3.3: Looks like the results in Figure 12 were generated using SEAS forecasts. Where HRES outputs used in any of the simulations reported in this manuscript? If not, perhaps HRES should not be mentioned.
6. Figure 10: The legend shows six significant figures for snow storage. I suggest the authors to write these numbers simply as integers.
Suggested minor edits
7. Throughout the manuscript, the authors refer to ‘snow store’, ‘soil store’, etc. I think the word ‘store’ should be replaced by ‘storage’ in all these cases.
8. L220: ‘output data’ -> ‘output variables’ (I recommend using ‘data’ only when referring to observed states/fluxes).
9. L311, L364, L374 and elsewhere: delete ‘the’ in front of ‘Kc’, ‘LAI’ and other acronyms (e.g. ‘the Kc is scaled’ -> ‘Kc is scaled’).
10. L420: ‘liquid state’ -> ‘liquid form’.
11. L585: ‘mentiond’ -> ‘mentioned’.
12. L792: ‘summarizing’ -> ‘adding’.
13. L1007: ‘parameter’ -> ‘variable’ (ET is a flux variable, not a parameter).
14. L1086: delete ‘and future’ (unless a reference containing future contributions of glacier melt is provided).
15. L1032: Please spell out INTOGENER.
16. L1041: ‘the model’ -> ‘it’.
17. L1409: ‘can easy be’ -> ‘can be easily’.