General comments: 

Dear authors,

The manuscript is well-written and covers an interesting topic relevant to the scope of the journal.

The manuscript has some linguistic deficiencies, particularly translation issues, which are discussed in more detail in the technical corrections. To improve the flow of reading, it is recommended to summarize some of the many short sentences. It is advisable to have a native speaker proofread the manuscript. 

The abstract provides a concise summary of the manuscript. The discussions are not well structured and difficult to follow, while the summary is more clear. 

The manuscript may be accepted after major revision, based on the following comments. 

Specific comments:

L15: the detail about the mud-phyllite in T3 is not of interest in the abstract. 

L21: You are rounding every age in this paragraph except for 9.35ka. 

L39: Please mention the studies. 

L64-65: "might need to be further studied" and "should be considered" appears indecisive.

L95: Do you mean "alpine erosion landform" ? 

Fig 1: The symbols on the map for the study area and county are not clear. It is difficult to understand the geological formations from the map. The villages on the map c & d might not be at their correct locations, a directional arrow can help here. 

L122-123: This assumes that the terrace levels are increasingly younger the higher they are, which is not the case. I suggest not using the phrases "oldest" and "youngest". 

L139: Why did you take OSL samples from different units? In my opinion, this immediately introduces a problem of water content and dose rate. It is good as an age check next to another sample from the same terrace, but I find it a bit difficult this way. And what about T6?

L156: Did you perform a density separation prior to etching to separate the quartz from the other material?

L162: What is the exact protocol you have been using?

L166: How did you measure the environmental dose rate? Did you take appropriate samples in the field?  

L170: Why did you sample there? In general, your choice of sampling location (also for OSL) is not entirely clear to me. 

Fig 4.: This is a very nice and vivid illustration.

L236: Is there an explanation for why T5 and T7 are missing the loess unit? 

Fig 5.: The x-axis font is too small.

L272: It is not "Optional", but "Optically Stimulated Luminescence" 

L281/282: Your terraces do not become younger with increasing elevation. T5 & T7 are older, but higher than T3 & T4 for example. Generally, this section is very difficult to follow (L272-286). 

L307: Have you done a bleaching test to correct the residuals?

L336: Round the numbers as they suggest a level of accuracy that you don't have. It is unclear what you are referring to with Table S1. You must mention the source for these ages.

L427-433: You have large ranges for incision rates here and you claim that there are significant differences. However, the differences are mainly in one area only, rather than compared to all of them.

L510: The results now indicate the exact opposite of the previous findings (see L122 & L281)

Fig. 10: Really nice presentation of the process and absolutely necessary. 

Technical corrections:

L27: Word repetition "evolution". 

L46: "The upper Minjiang River is located in the eastern Tibetan Plateau, and it is characterised by a wide distribution of three-tiered terraced."

L56-58: Word repetition "sedimentary system". It can be summarised as "fluvial, lacustrine, alluvial fan [...] sedimentary system". 

L61: "This indicates that" instead of "This is".

L74: Colloquial. "The Diexi area is located in the upper reaches of the Minjiang River". And please connect the first two sentences. 

L78: "..and the steep slopes on both sides of the river valley have a gradient of 30-35°."

L85-86: Word repetition "about".

L97-98: "The climate of the entire region is monsoonal, being influenced by the Plateau Monsoon, the Westerlies, and the East Asian Monsoon."

L194: The heading repeats. You should either write introductory words to the following chapters under chapter 4.1. or simply omit the top chapter. Same for chapters 5.2 and 5.2.1

L199: Word repetition "extension/extends"

L200: "On a high mountain" is colloquial. 

L231: "Angular phyllites occur in T3."

L332: Just write 830 ka

L334: "The terraces in the Diexi area have ages that are distributed between 550-50 ka (Table S1), with the majority observed between 32-2 ka."

L345: "It can be seen that the terrace formation mechanism downstream is different from that upstream."

L346: I would suggest not to write "publish". 

Fig 6: You have the same sentence here with the age 46.40 ka to 2.81 ka.

L370-373: Rewirte the sentences. Not "Tx are...". 

Fig. 7: Use different colors with each symbol. 

L487-489: "The upstream and downstream effects of the blockage are a rapid rise in water level followed by potential upstream flooding."

L492: "Gravity and density caused the material to be deposited in the palaeo-dammed Diexi Lake and formed a channel."

Based on geomorphology, sedimentology, and chronology, the manuscript reconstructing two damming and four outburst events occurred in the minjiang river during the late Pleistocene, which suggests that the blockage and collapse of the palaeo-dam have been a major factor in the formation of tectonically active mountainous river terraces, and tectonic movement and climatic fluctuations, on the other end, play a minor role. I think the topic of the paper is interesting. However, this manuscript mainly focuses on sediment dating and geomorphological interpretation. The content association with dynamics is much weak, thus I am wondering whether it is suitable for this journal or not. Considering that this manuscript still has a plenty of problems, we suggest a major revision.

The following are review opinions:

1. Language should be improved by a native English speaker, please avoid all kinds of grammar errors and please use scientific language to write the paper.
2. The evolution of Diexi landslide-dammed lake in eastern Tibetan Plateau has gotten special attention of a plenty of scientist. The author should introduce the details of Diexi landslide dammed lake, including the history of repeated landslide damming.
3. Ordinarily, uncertainties in estimating water content during burial are one of the largest sources of uncertainty in luminescence dating methods. Please give out the process of the determination of water content.
4. For OSL dating, the results of recycling ratios and recuperations should be presented, and aliquots with recycling ratios out of 0.9-1.1 and recuperations higher than 5% should be rejected.
5. The authors should select appropriate preheat and cutheat temperatures based on a preheat plateau test (Murray and Wintle, 2000) or following some case studies, and add some references.
6. How did the authors obtain the final De? Please illustrate.
7. Line 281: “T1 has the youngest paleosol unit with an age of 3.78±15 ka. Terraces grow younger amid the increase in elevation.” Obviously, this is paradoxical. Please find a better way to present the chronological results, to avoid the reader's misunderstanding.
8. For the lacustrine terraces, the dates can only implied that the filling up ages of the dammed lake rather formation time of terrace. Because of this misunderstanding, the comparison between climate date and terrace “formation” ages is also problematic.
9. “The third and fourth gradual collapse events respectively occurred at ~10 ka and ~9.35 ka.” How to divide the period of dammed lake? Is it just according to the age? How can we be sure that such a small difference in results is not due to a dating error? For the optical dating of the paper, both of the method and the internal checks of the results were not sufficiently presented. The reliability of the OSL data awaits further examination and more work is needed. My biggest concern about the OSL data comes from the bleaching extent of the OSL signals before deposition. However, the problem of bleaching extent has not been mentioned and explained in this paper, not yet anyway.
10. Tectonic uplift and climate changes are the two critical factors controlling the evolution of river landscapes and the formation of terraces. However, rock uplift rate is calculated from bedrock terraces, rather than lacustrine terraces.