The quality of the paper has been improved. We got only one reviewer's comments, but I checked the paper myself and think it can be accepted after minor revisions.

This submission has been reviewed by two experts in the field and by the Associate Editor (AE). The reviewers raised substantial concerns regarding the initial submission. One of the reviewers and the AE evaluated the revision, which they both found to be much improved and acceptable for publication in Earth Surface Dynamics. From reading the reviewer and AE comments, the authors' reply document, and the final revised paper, I agree and am pleased to accept this manuscript for publication. I expect that this work will contribute in significant ways to the evolving understanding fo earthquake-triggered landslides and their role in the evolution of the Earth's surface. Thank you for choosing Esurf for this interesting work!

I have the following corrections that could be addressed at this stage (before uploading final files) or during proof correction.

(1) throughout the main text (e.g., lines 119, 153, etc), the reference to the supplement is inconsistently formatted and does not accurately reflect the subheadings in the supplement sections; please correct this to be consistent and accurate

(2) please double check to make sure that the figures are uploaded at high resolution and appear correctly in the final PDFs; in some cases, the versions in some of the drafts for review are unacceptably low resolution for final publication (please check the final figure resolution not only for the main text proofs, but also for the supplement which will not be reviewed in detail during copy editing) — actually the most recent version seems ok, but just check these

(3) A few minor line-by-line notes:
Lines 14-15: reword to "seismic ground motion parameters AND lithologic and topographic features"
Lines 218: the "." should be removed before the citation to Robert, 2011
Line 269: add a "." after "e.g"

In the Supplement
Line S2: subtitle should be "Methods and metrics" to follow formatting of other subtitles (not capital M on Metrics)
Lines S24,S33: the brackets designating the interval range here are opposite the format used in the main text (line 98)
Line S42: "The use of Rp TO remove..."
Lines S46-47: it seems odd wording to say that you want to insure that the landslides oversample a given hillslope portion — presumably you want to make sure that values for Rp>1 represent an oversampling — these are different things, and I think the wording could be improved
Line S69: probability should not be capitalized unless there is a reason I don't understand
Line S81: errant space before the first sentence here
Line S124: "THESE parameters"
Figure S1 caption: I think it would help to specify the flow accumulation threshold used for channel delineation for this landscape, and more generally in this study (maybe I missed this elsewhere); also, can you clarify which of the three ridge delineation methods were used in calculating Rp as reported in the main text?
Figure S14 caption: It may be worth noting here that the extent of these areas is illustrated in Figure 7

As a final editorial note, my opinion is that this manuscript dances on the edge of relegating some important figures to the supplement, for example related to the Methods (S1, S2, S8) and key aspects of the interpretation (S17). I realize there are subjective judgments here, and the authors need not make a change at this stage — but I ask them to carefully consider balancing more towards to the main text for future submissions.