Publisher’s note: this comment was edited on 17 July 2023. The following text is not identical to the original comment, but the adjustments were minor without effect on the scientific meaning.

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your thorough review of our paper. We appreciate your time and valuable feedback. In this response, we aim to address each of your major comments.

Firstly, we would like to address the major comment concerning the flow velocity. We recognize the importance of comparing the maximum velocity reported by Ijima et al. (2021), and a review of their study and a detailed comparison with our results will be described in a revised manuscript to be submitted. It is important to note that our approach, assumptions, and model formulation differ significantly from the study mentioned. Ijima et al. (2021) primarily used the forward model with the assumption of the fault model for producing the initial waveform for their simulation, while the depositional information was not considered in their simulation. In contrast, our study employed an inverse model incorporating both tsunami hydrodynamic and sediment transport simulations. The essential difference is that their study estimates the hydrological conditions in the study area based on macroscopic information for the entire Tohoku region. In contrast, our study characterizes tsunamis based on the evidence available in the study area (i.e., tsunami deposits). Based on this difference, we intend to make a detailed comparison of the results of the two studies.

Regarding the comparison with observed values, we understand the difference between average hydraulic conditions and maximum velocities, and we will fully consider this difference in our discussions. We acknowledge a range of reported values (10-17 m/s) from the surrounding areas. Unfortunately, we do not accurately represent the maximum observed value. Therefore, we relied on the reported ranges without specific observed data for the area under study. Based on this information, we concluded that our simulated flow velocity of 12.1±0.4 m/s falls within the reported range of values from the area.

We hope this clarifies our position and justifies our conclusions regarding the flow velocity. We thank you once again for your thoughtful review and constructive comments. We have carefully considered your feedback and will incorporate it into the revised version of our paper. We intend to address each comment in the response letter thoroughly. Among the comments made in the PDF file, we also emphasize the importance of describing the sedimentological characteristics of tsunami deposits. In the revised manuscript, detailed columnar sections of the tsunami deposits, grain size analysis results, and outcrop photographs will be added as a supplement.

Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any further questions or require additional clarification. We appreciate your time and consideration.

Regards,

Rimali Mitra, Hajime Naruse, and Tomoya Abe

Publisher’s note: this comment was edited on 17 July 2023. The following text is not identical to the original comment, but the adjustments were minor without effect on the scientific meaning.

Dear Yamada San,

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have invested in providing valuable feedback. In this response, we aim to address each of your major comments.

Regarding the major comment concerning inundation depth and elevation, we have carefully considered your suggestion that addressing this issue may not be necessary. We acknowledge that the information in the PDF about supercritical flows and their in-phase relationship with the topography is relevant. To further improve clarity and eliminate any potential ambiguity, we will include an additional figure in the revised version of the manuscript. This figure will complement Figure 9 and specifically illustrate the correlation between measured watermark elevation and the distance from the shoreline. We are confident that this inclusion will enhance the comprehension of our findings and effectively address your concerns.

Moving on to the second comment regarding sedimentary structure, we acknowledge that there are differences in sedimentary structure between the Odaka and Sendai areas. Specifically, the tsunami deposits from the Odaka area are characterized by thick mud drapes at their tops, while the Sendai area exhibits deposits with a lower mud content. We appreciate your observation and agree that providing more detailed information on these variations in sedimentary structure is important. In the response letter, we will include additional explanations and discussions highlighting the differences in sedimentary characteristics between the two areas.

We sincerely appreciate you bringing these points to our attention. We will carefully consider and address each comment in the response letter, ensuring that our revised version comprehensively covers the raised concerns. If you have any further suggestions or questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. We greatly value your expertise and input.

Regards,

Rimali Mitra, Hajime Naruse, and Tomoya Abe