Thank you, Dr. Techel, for your time and review of our manuscript. We are pleased that you find this work highly relevant and an important contribution. Please find our responses to each of your comments below.

Abstract and Conclusion

• I suggest emphasizing more strongly a key applied takeaway: despite declining SWE values and a lower frequency of RLMA, truly extreme RLMA years remain possible, as the 2019 cycle has shown. This message has high practical relevance for forecasting, mitigation, and infrastructure planning – and likely also for policy makers.

Response: We will emphasize this more heavily in both the Abstract and Conclusion sections in the revised manuscript.

• Abstract L14: When introducing size ≥ D3, consider clarifying this as “(destructive size ≥ D3).”

Response: We will add ‘destructive’ to the revised manuscript.

Data

• The number of trees sampled (1,023 trees, 1,188 samples) currently appears in Section 3.1 under Results. It may be clearer to introduce this earlier, for example as Section 2.2 under a Data heading. Sections 2.2–2.5 could then form the Methods. This restructuring would improve the logical flow.

Response: Good suggestion. We will add this earlier in the manuscript with a new heading in the Methods section.

Methods

• L218–222, L225: An overview figure displaying the three analysis periods (1980–2019, 1900–2019, 1806–2019), and how each is used, would help orient the reader. Since the 1900–2019 period is further subdivided, this could possibly also be indicated within the same figure.
• The methods section is very dense. A flowchart or schematic illustrating the workflow - showing how analyses were conducted and how each step informed the next - would improve accessibility. This could even be combined with the overview figure suggested above.

Response to both points: Another good suggestion. We will add an overview schematic of our workflow and how that pertains to each period. We agree that this will help with readability.

Results and Figures

• The Results section is very rich in findings, with far more described in the text than shown in Figures 3–7. Many additional results are in the Supplement, which is fine, but the density of the main section makes it challenging to follow.

Response: We will take this into consideration and find ways to make the Results section a bit more concise in the revised manuscript.

• Section 3.1: The mean age of sampled trees is 127 years. Could this partly reflect the legacy of the 1899 extreme avalanche year, which may have removed older trees, like the effect of 2019?

Response: Yes, there are several factors that could impact the mean age of sampled trees: the 1899 cycle, deforestation, and wildfires among others. We will mention this in the Discussion. Given that we were able to sample trees older than this throughout the study domain coupled with our hierarchical Bayesian modelling approach, we are confident that the tree-ring record adequately represents a regional record of large magnitude cycles.

• Figure 2: Consider adding a timeline showing the proportion of trees alive in each year. This would clearly illustrate why uncertainty grows further back in time. While Figure 2b and Figure 3 partly address this, a dedicated visualization would be clearer.

Response: We can certainly add a panel that explicitly shows this in Figure 2 and enhances the decline in uncertainty back in time in Figure 3.

• Table 1: Consider moving this detailed table to the Appendix and keeping a more concise summary (table or figure) in the main text.

Response: We will make this into a more concise table in the revised manuscript.

• Figure 3: A central figure, but visually complex. Colors are difficult to distinguish, simplifying or improving contrast would help.

Response: We will improve contrast in Figure 3 in the revised figure.

• Figures 4 and 5: Clarify more clearly which colors represent RLMA years vs. non-RLMA years in a legend.

Response: We will add a legend representing RLMA and non-RLMA years.

• Figure 5: The order of panels (December, March, November, winter) is not intuitive, reordering to a chronological sequence would improve readability.

Response: We will revise Figure 5 to a chronological order.

Thank you, Mr. Miller, for your time and review of our manuscript. We are pleased that you find this work valuable and with the overall positive review. Please find our responses to each of your comments below.

Line-specific comments:

45: “CAIC” needs capitalization

Response: We will correct this in the revised version of the manuscript.

69: Citation list is alphabetical despite all others being chronological

Response: We will correct this in the revised version of the manuscript.

306: Was there an attempt to sample any avalanche paths within the region that were not affected by the 2019 cycle but are suspected to have been affected by previous RLMA events?

Response: Good question. We ultimately decided to sample paths with clear evidence of large magnitude avalanches in 2019 for two reasons. First, the 2019 cycle provided ample material (i.e. dead and downed trees) from which to sample allowing us to collect such a large dataset. Avalanche paths without dead and downed trees lacked material from which we could sample. Second, given the widespread nature of this avalanche cycle, we deemed any avalanche path without clear evidence of avalanche impact either unrepresentative or potentially unreliable. 

Figure S2: Winter “SWE” needs to be capitalized in the plot

Response: We will correct this in the revised version of the manuscript.