The paper after review from both reviewers is seen to be nearly ready for publication if the comments are integrated into the main text of the paper from the author responses.
At the moment, I cannot see the finalised manuscript beyond the changes made by reviewer #2 in their comments (which could be a system error).

I presume that these include the changes of the author responses as replied to the comments of reviewer 1 and 2.

One component outside of this issue which needs addressing is the probabilistic modelling approach made in this paper. The “100-year event” occurs simultaneously in all locations, hence the RP100 is not an event; but a combination of different events inferring a simultaneous 100 year RP pixel (i.e. a probabilistic map). It will as such not be the losses from a 100 year event; and likely significantly overestimates (however this is not always the case).
As such, the risk modelling using these maps is not plausible for comparison to any other event losses around the world at specific RPs when looking at "event probability occurrence" curves.
The other possibility is to make completely explicit that this is not an “event” but a 100-year probabilistic map where “maxima” occur from various events and an integration of economic losses across each pixel.

When presenting the paper, either this section on flood risk assessment would need to be left out and the annex for the AAL with appropriate explanation brought back in potentially (only showing that this is a theoretical map curve across Ethiopia, with integration of the curve assuming completeness of event losses over certain RPs).
An AAL for the purposes of analysis could be argued to work with this methodology but without presentation of the EP curve numbers (without appropriate explicit explanation throughout the paper).

Checking through the paper in review 2, most problems are addressed in the supplement, which should as such be integrated into the final paper.

I look forward to reading the modified manuscript and it will make a valuable contribution to the special issue once modified.

Dear authors,
Congratulations on this much-improved and very interesting manuscript. I am sure that readers will appreciate the discussion, supplements and also the methodology of the paper and I wish you all the best for your future research and extension of the future work and limitations of the paper.

We only have one technical correction:- in the TITLE the spacing of buildingmaterial- based should be changed to building material- based as buildingmaterial is not one word.
Best regards,
Dr.-Ing. James Daniell