The authors have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments and responded to the individual queries. The revised version of the manuscript is clear and updated except the fact some English grammatical corrections are necessary.
Comments on response to reviewer – 1
1. Reviewer -1 made a comment on the sensitivity of parameters and the need of the user to have an assumption.
Addressing this critical comment, the authors have explained the sensitivity of the tolerance parameter ‘C’ using an example in Section 3.2.3. A linear relationship of ‘C’ and the estimated landslide volume is illustrated in Figure 3. The response satisfies the reviewer’s query and further explains how to choose the threshold ‘C’ with respect to the landslide geometry.
2. Minor comments regarding the font size and enlargement of Figures have been done.
Comments on response to reviewer – 2
1. Explanation about 2.5 D surfaces is given sufficiently.
2. The length and slope heights of the landslides (the authors mention the scarp length here) are given for all the five landslides.
3. The length and width definitions are given appropriately.
4. The response given here is sufficient and clear enough to answer the reviewer. Small grammatical corrections could be done in the text. i.e. “Here, we always start” instead of “here we always start”.
5. The revision of legends in Figure 7, 8, 16 and 17 are given as explanations in Figure captions only. Other responses to the reviewer’s suggestions have been made clear.

Dear authors,

I am pleased to confirm acceptance of your manuscript for publication in Earth Surface Dynamics. Thank you for carefully and thoughtfully addressing the comments from the reviewers and Associate Editor. I expect this paper will make a good contribution to efforts to understand landslides.

In reading your revised submission, I found several lingering language issues that I recommend fixing at this stage, prior to uploading final files. These are listed below. I am sorry for the delay in providing my decision, but the large number of these issues took me some time to get through.

Perhaps most importantly, I also recommend adding a few sentences at the beginning of the Introduction to provide a more general context for the wide readership of this journal.

Thank you for choosing ESurf for your interesting work!

Please consider the following changes before uploading your final version:
Page 1, line 12: consider putting "prior to potential landslides of after their release" in parentheses after "failure surfaces" for greater clarity of reading; also it should be "release" not "releases"
Start of Introduction: this begins very specifically and assumes readers already appreciate the importance of understanding landslide failure surfaces, paleotopography, etc. To better appeal to the broad ESurf readership, I strongly suggest adding a few sentences at the start of the Introduction to provide general background and motivation for this work.
Page 1, line 26: sensitivity to what specifically?
Page 1, line 29: “only some authors” is awkward wording; please try to reword
Start of Introduction: add one or two general background sentences for a non-landslide audience?
Page 2, line 37: be more specific regarding “such topics”
Page 3, line 2: Kyushuin in 2009 (add “in”)
Section 2.2 header: “landslide” not “landslides”
Broken Formation should probably be capitalized throughout (page 3, lines 5 and 14, also page 4, line 15)
Page 5, line 23: similar to (add “to”)
Page 6, line 21: “to make correlate” is not correct grammar; please fix
Page 7, lines 19-20: grammar is not correct in the new text added here; please fix
Page 7, lines 25-27: please rewrite to be a complete sentence
Page 8, line 20: start, not starts
Page 9, line 1: potential, not potentiality
Table 1: It may help to provide a bit more annotation on this table about the meaning of specific rows and columns. It seems like a nice summary and a key part of the paper, but I find it a little confusing. And for Akatni-e and Nagatano, please clarify the meaning of the rows without headings on the farthest left column
Page 14, line 12: remove “also” where this is repeated
Page 20, line 7: Second sentence of this paragraph should be reworded for grammatical correctness and clarity of meaning (perhaps this is intended to mean something like “From inspecting the slope and hillshade maps in Figures 1, 13, and 15, it can clearly…”)
Page 20, line 17: “Extrapolating on the basis that it reaches…” might be more clear wording?
Page 25, line 2: it, not is
Page 26, line 10: for clarity, put “as demonstrated by Arai and Chigira, 2018” in parentheses following “regional thrust”
Page 26, line 13: that, not they
Page 28, line 18: not clear what is meant by “which must be improved” here
Page 29, line 1: show, not shows
Figure 25: I’d like to encourage a bit more effort with the formatting on this figure, at least using fonts other than the default Excel font (which it looks like this is, but I might be mistaken…)
Page 29, lines 9-15: the text uses “rather” several times here; this is a fairly vague and qualitative term in any case, and it might be better to use it more selectively and prefer more quantitative evaluations
Page 30, line 2: variability, not viability — also should be a semicolon here rather than a comma
Page 30, line 70: comma here, rather than semicolon
Figure 26: again, it might be nice to see a little refinement of the formatting here
Page 31, line 1: what is meant by “an expert approach” here?
Page 31, line 23: remove “the estimation of the” so it just says “the expansion coefficients are challenging to estimate”
Page32, line 14: “and we thank them” (and “and”)