dear Authors

after reviewing your paper we deem that at the present stage it is still not ready for publication, but that it is at the same time of potential interest to the NHESS reader.
For this reason, we think that, should you be ready to incorporate changes and improvements in the manuscript, it can become acceptable.
In particular, the reviewers think that some aspects have to be improved with special reference to the following:

- the organization of the manuscript has to be reworked to better split state-of-the-art and methods used in the research

- some more detail is needed for several of the aspects considered in the study. i.e. the reasons of choosing the 2 models among many others, the way and what of the physical parameters used to run the simulations (field and lab parameters are always a key issue in numerical simulations and should be carefully selected, measured and assessed). This is not clear from the reading of the paper

- some sentences are not clear and this does not contribute to the level of understanding provided by the manuscript text on the research methods, results and conclusions. A careful spell and grammar check of the document by an experienced English-writer would be very useful there.

In general, please refer to the 2 referee's comment sheets and try to answer all the questions and suggestions one by one. After that, a new review round will be necessary.

I hope that you will have time to apply those modifications and to submit again your paper, which is of interest for the journal.

My best regards,
FC

dear Authors

after reviewing the comments of referees and your replies, we believe that the manuscript is now almost ready for acceptance in NHESS.
However, I have one minor, yet important, caveat on terminology. You repeatedly use the terms "soil depth" and "landslide depth" as if they were synonyms. They are not.
This mistake may imply two options, which I ask you to clarify:
1. your model uses only landslide depths for modeling with TRIGRS
or
2. your model has a separate soil depth modeling scheme (based only on slope angle which I do not personally endorse but which is acceptable) and then applies TRIGRS using this variable everywhere in the study areas

In case 1 it is acceptable to mix the two terms but you are assuming that new landslides will have depths equal to the mapped ones, which is a little bit far fetched. In case 2 you may have a more general approach and better results for new landslides but you cannot mix the two terms.

Please clarify this point and modify the manuscript accordingly (for example by avoiding the term "landslide depth").
After your new submission, the manuscript will only be revised by myself and then proceed to publication stage.

I am sure you will be put forward this last effort to finalize a very nice paper,

best regards
FC

dear Authors

thank for accepting and applying my last suggestions to the manuscript.
The paper is now ready to go to the editing stage which will be take over by the Journal Staff in due time.
You will be shortly contacted by them for finalising the manuscript format and details.
Thank you for submitting to NHESS,

best
FC