Dear authors,

Thank you for your comprehensive responses to the review comments and the revised manuscript. I have a few further, minor style suggestions for the text, but otherwise I think this work can proceed to the next stage in the journal.

thanks,

Robin Smith

page 1, line 8: I thought having the first use of 'retreat' and 'submarine melt' as the names of the parameterisations in quotes made a helpful distinction, actually.

p2,l8: use of 'our' implying ownership of ISMIP6 could be misleading. "the" would be simple

p2,l16: the only GrIS ocean forcing you're supplying comes from CMIP5 models, I think this sentence needs to be shaded - or just removed entirely? The Summary at the end had some similar sentences that I thought were clearer

p4,l1: "resolution of technical capability" should be 'or', I guess?

p4,l5: 'capabilities', plural, reads better to me

p6,l22: "may deviate": no "may" about it, they certainly do, for many quantities

p7,l17: "methodology" would be better as "practice". There /are/ differences in the methodology, but they have negligble impact in practice.

p9,l21: "In-keeping" is normally two separate words, not hyphenated

p12,l7: "Lastly": this is a not really a logical continuation of the list of things, I'd just say "We note that". You've already had a "Lastly" in this paragraph too (p12,l2)

p18,l28: It's not just that CMIP5 AOGCMs don't resolve the fjords (leaving the reader to infer that maybe CMIP6 ones do) - you used "CMIP" as a general term before, I'd use it again here to make it clear that this isn't a problem with one specific CMIP iteration.