I thank the authors for providing detailed responses to the reviewer comments. At this point, I encourage them to upload a revised version of their manuscript, taking into account the two minor points below.

(1) The final sentence of reviewer 2’s point 8 (“And how would these BEC corrections be distinguished from large viscoelastic responses suspected in these same regions?”) is not fully addressed in your response. Please rectify this.

(2) Comparing figures 5 and 8, the difference in the sign of the GIA-induced BEC signal in the Siple Coast/Ross Sea region is striking. This is a region where the GIA-induced BEC signal is typically predicted to be positive. Please briefly comment on the reason for the sign change between the two figures.

In the revised version of your manuscript, please indicate where the text has been changed. For clarity, please also include a revised version of your responses to the reviewer comments, indicating which (if any) manuscript edits relate to each comment.

Kind regards,

Pippa Whitehouse

Dear Authors,

You have addressed all the comments raised during the review process and the manuscript is now fit for publication.

This article provides a detailed, quantified insight into the sensitivity of data inversion methods to input data sets and data analysis choices. As such, it will provide a useful source of reference for those seeking to use satellite data to quantify ice mass change and glacial isostatic adjustment across Antarctica.

Thank you for choosing to publish your research in The Cryosphere.

Kind regards,
Pippa Whitehouse