Dear Kieran and Doug,

I have now received two further reviews for your paper. I apologise that this took some time; a reviewer had agreed to submit a report, but withdrew a couple weeks later, and as a result I had to find a replacement.

Both reviewers looked at the previous review comments and your replies, and their reviews are thoughtful, detailed and thorough. Both are generally supportive of the paper, but have a host of suggestions for improvements.

Reviewer #1 gives a critical appraisal of some of the choices you have made in the revisions. I think these are spot on, and in particular I would like to stress that a blunt dismissal of published literature is not on. As reviewer #1 suggests, you need to either acknowledge this work and the conclusions it arrives as, or you need to provide a thorough discussion of why you disagree with these conclusions, disclosing all of your arguments and the details of the analysis.

Reviewer #2, who saw the paper for the first time, struggled with the clarity of presentation and with structure in places. He provides detailed suggestions on how to improve this, and I ask you to have a particular focus in improving clarity, language and structure during revisions.

I have recommended major revisions, because I think the reviewers' requests go beyond changes that should be reviewed by me as the AE. Please provide a revised manuscript and a detailed rebuttal letter to demonstrate that you deeply engaged with the comments.

Thanks for your work and I am looking forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

All the best, Jens

Dear Kieran and Doug,
Thank you for all the work carried out on the paper. I am very pleased to tell you that I recommend this for final publication to the Senior Editor.
All the best,
Tom