The authors have done good job at addressing the review comments. This has been recognised by the Reviewer. However, I agree with the Reviewer that there are several issues that raise some concerns. (1) the novelty of the model and approach and (2) the validation of the model. These issues are required to be addressed before the paper can be published. Addressingb these issues will make the paper stronger and likely have higher impact.

Dear Authors,
I believe the comments have been addressed and the paper is ready for publication. Please check all equations and details are correct in the proofs. I look forward to seeing the paper in print.
Regards, Greg

Dear authors,

Based on the thorough evaluation of your submission by the Associate Editor and reviewers during multiple rounds of review, I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in esurf. Thank you for choosing this journal and for your hard work to revise your paper to take into account the various comments and suggestions.

Overall, your manuscript seems in good shape to me though I have a few minor notes for consideration, listed below. You might take these into account before uploading your final files for typesetting.

In addition, and perhaps most importantly, I urge you to include the model as an "asset" tied to this article, once you are ready to post the code publicly. Even if you revise the model as part of another paper and provide the code publicly at that time, you should be able to add a link to it in the future by contacting the Copernicus helpdesk.

Minor comments:
Line 174: Where does the lapse rate come from? Can you provide a citation?
Line 184: Use a semicolon not a comma here.
Line 185: What is the rationale for thinking that the measurements at Sörenberg were lower in accuracy than at other sites? Is this grounded in the methodology used at that site?
Line 246: I suggest removing "In this chapter" which sounds like the manuscript was adapted from a thesis or book. You could just start here with "In section 4.1 we evaluate..."
Line 248: I would remove "Here" at the start of this sentence as it doesn't really make sense in this context to me.
Line 257: "by showing the time series of discharge AND the sediment" (use and instead of the comma)
Line 262: Use a semicolon not a comma here.
Lines 295-300 and Fig. 7: I wonder if a comment in the caption might help to remind readers that negative values represent more erosion while positive values represent less (at least I assume that this is the case, but it took me a moment to connect the text and the figure).
Line 332: "to overestimate"
Line 333: I suggest removing "to observe"
Line 392: might be clearer to say "overall causes a reduction"
Line 423: "despite the system being globally less efficient..."
Line 435: "as is suggested by Figure 10b"
Figure 1: might be useful to mention the coordinate system used for these maps (you might also add this info to the online data repository where you provide these datasets?)

Thank you again for choosing esurf for your work!

Josh