Dear authors,

thank you very much for your response to the 2 reviews. As you have seen, both referees find your work valuable, however, both also have a number of comments and concerns. In particular, reviewer #1 questions the use of BNs in the context of your study. I feel that this is a fundamental point, as he/she argues to have experience with BNs, but still does not see its justification.

I decided on 'major revision', but my understanding is that this fundamental issue needs to be completely resolved before the work could be considered for publication. Major concerns about the appropriateness of the applied method would lead to rejection of the paper. Related to this fundamental issue is the question of the scientific contribution of the paper which was not completely clear to me.

One formal issue: Could you please clearly mark your answers to the comments in the response letter? For example, for some comments, your response follows directly to the comment without sign (AA).

Best regards, Bruno Merz

Dear authors,

your revised manuscript has been carefully reviewed by a referee, considering in particular the main critical comments of the first round of reviews. Although he/she acknowledges clear improvements, there is still some confusion and lack of clear presentation. I would like to ask you to address his/her comments in another revision.

What puzzles me in particular is that this reviewer, and reviewer 1 of the first round, are both working with Bayesian Networks, and both could not understand the claimed beneifit of using Bayesian Networks in this context. Now this referee suggests that your application may not be a Bayesian Network - in any way, this confusion needs to be clarified.

Best regards, Bruno Merz

Dear authors,

thank you very much for your effort and care in answering all the comments of the reviewer and in revising the manuscript accordingly.

Best regards, Bruno Merz