The paper proposed an adaptive hydrometeor retrieval scheme that blends two existing methods for radar reflectivity assimilation: the “temperature-based” method and the “background hydrometer-dependent” method. The innovation lies in the development of a blending scheme that combines both methods adaptively, which helps to mitigate the limitations of each individual method. The topic is really interesting. However, some critical details should be further described. Here are my comments and suggestions.

Major comments

1. In case 2, the author did not conduct a quantitative evaluation of radar reflectivity or precipitation forecasts. A more thorough quantitative assessment could be provided to better validate the performances of the different retrieval schemes.

2. The description of the background hydrometer-dependent method is not clear, particularly regarding key implementation details. For example, it is unclear how the radar reflectivity threshold intervals are defined, what sample size is used for the background statistics, and how the climatological data are calculated. Providing more details in these aspects can help to enhance the reproducibility and transparency of the method.

3. The last paragraph of the introduction provides only a superficial listing of each section’s content. To improve the clarity and effectiveness of the paper, it is recommended to expand on the role of each section. Elaborate on how they contribute to the overall narrative and objectives of the research, which will help readers gain a clearer understanding of the study’s scope and significance.

4. The writing needs further improvement. It is recommended that the authors engage a professional editor or a native English speaker to proofread it, which would significantly boost the clarity and coherence of the manuscript.

Minor comments

1. Abstract: The abstract does not explicitly address the impact of thermodynamic and dynamic structures on the forecast results. Given that the evolution of convective systems is closely related to environmental thermodynamics and dynamics (e.g., vertical velocity and wind shear), including a brief statement on how the proposed method enhances key thermodynamic structures would make the abstract more comprehensive.

2. Line 48: Please rephrase this sentence “the EXP_temp-bg experiment predict the radar reflectivity structures and precipitation intensity more accurately”

Line 254: spelling mistake: “producess” → “produces”

Line 344: “1-h, 3-h, and 5-h forecasts valid at 2100 UTC 06 August 2018 for EXP_temp”?

1. Section 2: Please use the style requirements of American Meteorological Society uniformly in words, formulas and charts. For example, single-character variables should be italicized; Use non-italic bold for vectors or matrices.

2. Section 2.3 L148~154: Does α and a represent the same variable?

3. Section 2.3.3: Equations (9) and (10) defining the blending scheme lack a clear explanation of how the weighting factors are determined.

4. Section 2.3.3: What is the weight meaning β for? It needs more description.

5. Section 3: The paper mentions the use of radar observations but does not provide sufficient details on the quality control procedures.

6. Section 3: The observation error statistics estimated and used in DA determine the increment field for given innovations. Quantitative details of these statistics are crucial for understanding DA results but are not provided. Also, a more detailed description of the experiment design is required.

7. Section 4: In the Fig. 6 and Fig. 12, the wind speed scale needs to be given in the lower right corner of the figure, and the length of the wind vector indicates the wind speed, and the unit is how much.

8. Section 4.2: Where is the cross section shown in Figure 12?

9. Section 5: The conclusion mentions using dual-polarization radar in future studies, but does not elaborate on how this would be integrated into the current framework. Providing more details on potential improvements or challenges would strengthen the future outlook.

10. Some pictures (e.g. Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 10, Fig. 11, Fig. 12) are too small to read clearly. Please enlarge the labels for better visibility.

The study proposes an adaptive hydrometeor retrieval scheme, which adaptively combines “temperature-based” and “background hydrometer-dependent” methods to improve analyses and forecasts of two real cases occurred during June 2020 and August 2018. However, the manuscript lacks more details about the retrieval scheme itself. Specifically, it would be helpful to provide a more detailed explanation of how the two methods are combined, including the criteria or algorithm used for their weighting. Additionally, English writing needs to be further improved. 

Minor:

1.    The manuscript lacks a detailed description of the used radars in the two case studies.

2.    Due to the critical role of water vapor in the development of strong convection, it is necessary to clarify whether water vapor is assimilated and how it is assimilated in the method section.

3.    Comparing Fig. 10 and Fig. 11, it seems that the vertical distribution of hydrometeor and radar reflectivity do not match.

4.    In the second case study, the evaluation of all experiments is primarily qualitative, lacking a thorough quantitative assessment. 

5.    Line 316, “However, it does not exist in the other two experiments ……” the sentence is not clearly expressed. 

6.    Line 368, “As shown in Fig. 9c and d”?

7.    It is beneficial to add a water vapor cross section in the second case similar to Figure 6. Providing such a cross section would help explain the impact of the different retrieval scheme on moisture distribution.