Maike Offer and colleagues present an innovative and well-executed study of seasonal thermo‑hydro‑mechanical dynamics in permafrost rockwalls using automated ERT monitoring integrated with temperature, piezometric, and mechanical data. The results convincingly demonstrate the importance of hydrostatic and cryostatic pressures in controlling rock slope stability, providing valuable new field-based evidence in an area where observations are typically scarce.

Overall, this is a novel, well-written, and scientifically robust contribution that clearly advances the understanding of coupled processes in permafrost rock slopes. The manuscript is well structured, figures are original, of high quality, and the interpretation is generally sound and well supported by the data. I particularly appreciated the integration of multiple datasets (ERT, anchor loads, piezometry, and temperature), which allows for a compelling process-based interpretation. I very much enjoyed reading the manuscript.

Minor comments are mostly editorial and stylistic and are provided in the annotated version attached.

This manuscript investigates the contributions of hydrostatic and cryostatic processes to the observed electrical resistivity signal in high-alpine permafrost rockwalls using a comprehensive monitoring dataset. It is well structured and clearly written, with well-defined objectives and a meaningful contribution to the understanding of seasonal processes in permafrost rock slopes. The dataset and its analysis are comprehensive, thoroughly explained, and well-illustrated. I found the figures particularly informative and well annotated.

Understanding the drivers of slope instability in permafrost rockwalls is an important research topic, and this study provides a novel and valuable contribution to the field. Overall, the manuscript is of high quality and suitable for publication. I have only a few minor comments and corrections for the authors to consider.

Specific comments

• Perhaps the word “preparing” in reference to permafrost rock instabilities could be replaced by “conditioning” or “priming”, as it sounds awkward in places (e.g lines 5, 32, 375)
• How was the active layer measured? If it was defined as the depth of the 0°-degree isotherm which seems to be the case, this should be explicitly stated in the methods section
• Section 3.1 Data pre-processing: It would be helpful to report the contact resistance values (e.g., as a range, seasonal averages, or similar statistics), as it provides a useful reference for other winter ERT studies
• I am a bit unclear about the choice of the b parameter in the error model. I find it a great strength of this study that reciprocal measurements were acquired, which is not always possible for permafrost ERT measurements. Considering that reciprocal analysis was performed, could the authors clarify why b = 0.08 was selected for all inversions? Based on Figure 2d, most values fall between 0 and 0.03, with only two outliers approaching 0.04-0.06. Would it be more appropriate to scale b based on measurement ID (perhaps binned into phases or seasons), as nicely illustrated in Figure 2d, rather than applying a single value to all measurements?
• Section 3.2 Inversion routines: This section could be expanded with a few more details on the inversion procedure. For example, it would be helpful to briefly describe the inversion method, the data and model norms used, and the choice of regularization.
• Lines 296-297: The authors write: “Almost the entire ERT model exhibited values below 10 kΩm, except for a localised zone near the surface (∼5 m depth) in the upper part of the profile (x = 0-18 m)”. I am curious about another localized zone of higher resistivities, around the borehole location. Since this phase corresponds to the deepest active layer, I would have expected the active layer to be more clearly resolved in the inverted tomogram, particularly around the borehole location. Do the authors have any thoughts on why this is not more apparent, and the shallow near-surface region shows higher resistivities instead?
• Figure 4 provides interesting historical anchor load data, and I understand that it is included to show how typical the observed seasonal pattern is. However, since the analysis and discussion focus mainly on the 2024–2025 observations, I wonder whether Figure 5b might be sufficient for the main text, and Figure 4 could be moved to the Appendix
• In the lower right corner of Figure 6, some of the colours used to depict the depth sections are repeated in the circular phase plot. This may be slightly confusing for the readers, as the same colours represent different information. Have the authors considered simplifying the colouring of the depth sections? In my view, a single colour or graduated shading would be sufficient, especially as the depths are already labelled next to the corresponding boxes.

Technical corrections

• Lines 10-12: The authors write: “The ERT data set was combined with observations of the rockwall’s hydro-mechanical response derived from load cells of two 25 m-long anchors and from piezometric measurements at 16.85 m depth”. To me, this wording gives the impression that the load cell and piezometric measurements are somehow directly integrated into the ERT inversion. Since these measurements are only used to help interpret the resistivity response, I would suggest rewording this statement to make that distinction clear.
• Lines 29-33: The authors write: “Despite the control exerted by the geological structure (Stead and Wolter, 2015), frost weathering- and erosion-driven fracture propagation (Matsuoka and Murton, 2008; Mayer et al., 2024), long-term seismic loading (Gischig et al., 2016), glacial changes (Hartmeyer et al., 2020a; Pfluger et al., 2025) and permafrost degradation (Gruber and Haeberli, 2007; Savi et al., 2021), hydrostatic and cryostatic pressure play a crucial role in preparing planes of weakness.” I am not sure that despite is the right word here. In my view, hydrostatic and cryostatic pressures are additional factors contributing to slope destabilization, rather than contrasting ones to the controls listed above. Perhaps the sentence could be reworded to reflect this more clearly?
• Line 69: in the sentence starting with “Therefore, we here conducted daily…” I suggest to either remove “here” altogether, or move it before the “we”
• Lines 101-103: The authors write: “Numerous open fractures, also observed along the ERT profil (Keuschnig et al., 2017), are filled with fine-grained material that promotes water infiltration and thus influences the hydrostatic and thermal dynamics of the rock mass”. A brief explanation of this influence would be helpful, rather than just stating that an influence exists.
• Line 102: typo in the word “profile”, missing “e” at the end
• Lines 116 - 119: Consider adding a reference for the statement of Wenner configuration being associated with the maximal signal strength
• Line 124: Consider adding an “and”: friction-locked and grouted
• Line 188: I would remove the word “technical” before “filtered data sets”
• Line 189: Suggests, instead of suggest
• Line 226: Is the statement that “fractures were predominantly ice-filled” based on the interpretation of the ground temperature data? Perhaps a brief clarification could be helpful here, as some readers may interpret this as a more direct measurement of unfrozen water content.
• Line 316: The authors write: “…During phase I (stable freezing), high resistivity values (> 19 kΩm, decisive for frozen conditions (Offer et al., 2025)) …”. I find the wording slightly awkward here. Perhaps indicative of frozen conditions (or characteristic of, associated with, etc.) would be more appropriate than decisive for frozen conditions.
• Line 375: Similarly, here, the phrase “decisive in preparing” reads slightly awkward to me. Perhaps consider rephrasing it using an alternative.
• Lines 386-387: The authors write: “the pattern of enhanced subsurface electrical conductivity during snowmelt is also reported in other automated monitoring studies (Hilbich et al., 2011; Kneisel et al., 2014)”. I would add “in similar settings” or an alternative, as “other monitoring studies” is rather broad