The topic of this paper is the estimation of natural seismic hazard using the seismic coupling and seismogenic depth estimation method. The authors' approach is comprehensive and quantitatively evaluates the entire fault system and seismic hypocentres in western Slovenia for the transition zone between the Alps, the Dinarides and the Pannonian Basin. This is a fact worthy of inclusion in the new Slovenian seismic risk model. I strongly recommend that paper be published. Perhaps, just for the reader's ease of finding the correspondence, the authors should attach an appendix or index with an explanation of the abbreviations that are actually explained in the text. But since there are quite a lot of them, they could also be systematized.

GENERAL COMMENT

The paper is very good. It addresses an important aspect, not yet researched, related to seismic sources in Slovenia. The width and depth of the seismogenic layer are a crucial input in modern PSHA. It is well written and deserves publication. There are only a few details that should be improved in order to fully understand some parts, also for the non-specialized reader. I suggest therefore a minor review.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS  (L = line of paper)

L18      Should add an introductory statement stating that three source models are used.

L74      We applied...  No application of PSHA in this paper. Should say:  Šket Motnikar et al. (2022) applied ...

L77-78 Sentence has no clear meaning. Rewrite.

L104    The abbreviation PS is not explained before (e.g. in lines 81-85)

L145    In the caption of Fig.2 there should be a reference (e.g. DOI Pangaea dataset) where is it possible to correlate the acronym of the fault with the actual fault name and properties.

L162    If the ZAMG catalog spans the period 1998-2014 how is possible to consider events from 1990 on ?

L236    »... from neighbouring zone...« Missing criterium of selection if there are several neighbouring zones !

L245    same comment as for L236

L361    Figure 4. One woudl expect also to see (with comments in the text) in this Figure some of the main propminent and known faults in Slovenia  (e.g. Idrija, Snežnik, Sava, Orlek) and neighbouting Croatia (e.g. Petrinja). I strongly invite the Authors to add these.

L379-80 + Fig. 7:         »hypocentral depths«  Unclear and could not find explanation in the  text about the exact definition. Is it the average or median                                       hypocentral depth of the events in the source area or fault related? Same for caption of Figure 7.

L448-451         »... is justified and choice of method appropriate.« Please justify this affirmation with some explanation. Any conclusion on couplings or β 

                         parameter? Same applies to Fig. 9.

                         »The fit is the best between..« -->  »The best fit is between...«  BUT: explain  why!

                        »'Carafa c' branch«     Some short explanation about the Carafa branches is  needed for the non-specialized reader.

L598                In caption of Table 9 indicate »SR=slip rate«

L591                ».... was used as one logic tree branch in PSHA.«     ».... was used by (Reference!) as one logic tree branch in PSHA.«

TECHNICAL COMMENTS

L84      English: ...are in detail explained   -->   are explained in detail

L95      English:  A fraction   -->  The fraction

L99      were studied   -->   are studied

L166    'joined'            better 'added'

L172    A seismic source ..

VARIOUS ASPECTS

1. Does the paper address relevant scientific and/or technical questions within the scope of NHESS?   Yes
2. Does the paper present new data and/or novel concepts, ideas, tools, methods or results?   Yes
3. Are these up to international standards?   Yes
4. Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and outlined clearly?  Yes
5. Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and the conclusions?  Yes
6. Does the author reach substantial conclusions?   Yes
7. Is the description of the data used, the methods used, the experiments and calculations made, and the results obtained sufficiently complete and accurate to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)?  If the catalogs are made available.
8. Does the title clearly and unambiguously reflect the contents of the paper?  Yes
9. Does the abstract provide a concise, complete and unambiguous summary of the work done and the results obtained?  Yes
10. Are the title and the abstract pertinent, and easy to understand to a wide and diversified audience?   Yes
11. Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations and units correctly defined and used? If the formulae, symbols or abbreviations are numerous, are there tables or appendixes listing them?     Yes, no need for appendixes
12. Is the size, quality and readability of each figure adequate to the type and quantity of data presented?    Yes
13. Does the author give proper credit to previous and/or related work, and does he/she indicate clearly his/her own contribution?   Yes
14. Are the number and quality of the references appropriate?   Yes
15. Are the references accessible by fellow scientists?    Mostly
16. Is the overall presentation well structured, clear and easy to understand by a wide and general audience?   Mostly
17. Is the length of the paper adequate, too long or too short?     Adequate
18. Is there any part of the paper (title, abstract, main text, formulae, symbols, figures and their captions, tables, list of references, appendixes) that needs to be clarified, reduced, added, combined, or eliminated?     No
19. Is the technical language precise and understandable by fellow scientists?  Yes
20. Is the English language of good quality, fluent, simple and easy to read and understand by a wide and diversified audience?  Yes
21. Is the amount and quality of supplementary material (if any) appropriate?    Yes