Dear Karsten and coauthors:

Thank you very much for your detailed responses to the reviewers' comments. Please go ahead and implement your changes as described. I am looking forward to reading your revised manuscript.

Best wishes
Pascal Haegeli, PhD
NHESS Editor
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver BC, Canada

Dear Karsten, Frank and Christoph:

I am very sorry that it has taken me so long to get back to you. Thank you very much for taking the time to revise your manuscript and responding to the reviewer comments. Given the central role of the EAWS matrix and guidelines for forecasting procedures in European avalanche warning services (and indirectly in other warning services), I think this is a very important paper. Hence, I have worked through it in detail again (which is why it has taken me so long to get back to you). During my study, several questions have come up, which I would like you to consider before I accept the manuscript for publication. My intent is not to create unnecessary extra work, but rather to ensure that this manuscript will have the impact it deserves.

Please see below for my detailed my comments. The main concerns relate to:
• The structure of the manuscript
• The design and description of the EAWS matrix and its components
• The study of the operational use of the EAWS matrix
• The content of the discussions and resulting recommendations

I also included suggestions for editorial changes to make the manuscript easier to read and clearer.

I know that I am providing a lot of fundamental comments and detailed suggestions at this stage of the publication process, but I hope you find them useful for bringing your important manuscript to the next level. I am also aware that some of the information presented in this paper is under the control of the EAWS and not just the author team, which makes making changes more complex. However, articles published in academic journals are important references for our community, and the peer-review process offers an important mechanism for raising these types of concerns.
Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss individual points in more detail.

Best wishes
Pascal

Pascal Haegeli, PhD
NHESS Editor
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver BC, Canada

Dear Frank and co-authors:

Thank you very much for the submission of of the revised manuscript. I am glad you found my suggestions for splitting the original manuscript useful. Given the the new version of the manuscript is substantially different from original one, I would like to run it by the reviewers again.

Best wishes
Pascal Haegeli

Hi Karsten, Frank, and Christoph:

Thank you very much for the submission of your revised manuscript. Please see the attached PDF for my latest comments. While there is a bit of work left to do before I can accept your manuscript for publication, I do not think this should take too much time. I am looking forward to the submission of your revisions.

Best wishes
Pascal Haegeli, PhD
NHESS Editor
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver BC, Canada

Dear Karsten, Frank and Christoph:

Thank you very much for your second round of revisions. I am pleased with where the paper got to, and I am happy to accept it for publication in NHESS. Congratulations for a great contribution to the literature. This will be a key references for operational avalanche forecasting and related research. Thanks for publishing in NHESS.

Best wishes
Pascal Haegeli
NHESS Editor
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver BC, Canada