I read the manuscript with interest. It presents the results of a PSI monitoring activity on a very big dam in Argentina to assess “the deformation and deformation time series for the locations of the anchorages of the dam.”

The content is interested for NHESS readers. Overall, the paper is well structured, with a valid scientific and technical approach. Results are presented in a clear and well-organized manner. I have only a few comments and suggestions for improvements.

Specific comments:

• Title: I’ll chance the word “revealed” with “confirmed” or something like that, because, as you state in the document landslide are already known and your work confirm their presence and I’ll add the word “activity” after Landslide.
• I understand that a brief communication is a very short paper, but I would like to read more about the contributes on assessing the project safety, also considering that in the conclusion you specify that the construction works are still in progress. So, what is your contribution to the dam risk assessment, besides say that perhaps the landslide is still active? In the abstract, in fact, you assess that the results include deformations’ maps and time series to locate the anchorages of the dam.
• It could be useful to highlight the work phases on panels A-D of figure 2 so that a comparison between the trend and the work’s process can be done.

Technical corrections:

• Ln41: MW instead of megawatt
• Ln74: is the fault within the image boundaries? If yes, please add it in the figure. If no, please specify it in the text
• Figure 1: numbers on purple and dark green are not so visible. Moreover, as in Figure 2 I’ll suggest to use “Coordinates are UTM zone19S” instead of “50.21º South, 70.78º West”
• Ln104 (and in the whole text): use 68,477 to be consistent with 5,000 at ln42
• Table 1: caption should be placed above the table and not below
• References: according to the guideline references allowed for a brief communication are just 20

This brief communication shows the importance of InSAR data for unraveling ongoing deformation during large construction works. The topic is of certain interest, the geographical location is, to my knowledge, uncommon for this kind of applications. It can be defined as a novel work.

Major points:

• section 5 wll benefit from a more rigorous description of the processing approach. I understand that there is not much space to do this in a brief communication, but some general sentences (e.g.lines 87 to 92) shall be substituted with information about the processing solution adopted here.
• The discussion section can be enriched with some considerations of the authors about the relevance of the interferometric data during and after the ground operations.

Minor points:

• some acronyms are not defined in the text. Please check
• I suggest that you use the velocity of PSs along with the accumulated displacement. Velosity is a more readable parameter for non-experts
• ABstract, first line. The term "dam industry" looks odd to me
• line 19. Is it needed to write the title of the website page?
• line 63, crop out instead of cover the surface
• Fig.1. I propose to change the color of the sketch of the dam project from black to white
• Line 104 density instead of ratio
• Line 109 'pronounced deformation trend' is a vague word choice