Dear Dr. Fouinat, I have now had a chance to carefully read your response to the reviewers’ comments as well as your revised manuscript. I concur with both reviewer that – even after substantial improvements during the revision process - the general organization and focus of the manuscript is not optimal. While the data and in depth analysis presented are of clear interest with respect to understanding lacustrine sediment records and the erosion/deposition processes that generate them, it is not clear to me that the manuscript convincingly lays the ground work for using the proposed technique to reconstruct avalanche activity. This in part due to a lack of direct characterization of deposits that could be unambiguously attributed to avalanches. In the end, the comparison of independent proxies of avalanche activity with your CT scan based record (i.e. figure 5) is rather unconvincing. Therefore, in order for the paper to become suitable for publication in Earth Surface Dynamics, I suggest that you consider a significant re-organization of the manuscript and in particular a broadening of the focus of the study, along the lines of what Reviewer #2 suggested.

Sincerely,
Dr. Valier Galy

Dear Dr. Fouinat,
thank you for submitting a revised version of your manuscript. I have now had a chance to read it carefully and I am pleased to recommend its publication subject to technical corrections. Overall you did a very good job at broadening the scope the manuscript and I am sure it will make it much more appealing to the broad readership of Earth Surface Dynamics. I am aware that neither you nor your co-authors are native English speakers and – being myself in that position - I know how difficult it is to eliminate syntax errors. That said, before the manuscript can be published, please have it checked and edited by a native English speaker, in particular the sections that were largely rewritten during the revision process. A handful of minor comments also follow for your consideration.

L72: please define voxel as the average reader of Earth Surface Dynamics probably not familiar with this term.

L209-210: it would be easy to accurately measure the actual volume, thereby removing the assumption on its density.

L227-229: statistically speaking one data point can be considered to be an outlier, with the remaining data points distributed around the 1:1 line. As it is your correlation is heavily weighted towards that one outlier.

Sincerely,
Dr. Valier Galy.

Dear Authors,
Thank you very much for your ESurf paper. I am delighted to inform you that pending 2-3 minor technical corrections as detailed in this email and a final proof read - your paper is accepted for final publication in ESurf.
We appreciate your efforts revising the manuscript in line with the reviewers comments and editors guidance - and hope you would consider using ESurf again in the future.
Best wishes,

Tom Coulthard