The authors analyze the multi-lake outburst flood which occurred in the Thame Valley in the Everest region of Nepal in August 2024. The study includes a comprehensive analysis of the triggering, initiation, and dynamics of the event. It is of high scientific and practical relevance and perfectly fits to the scope of the journal. The figures are of generally high quality, whereas the quality of the language varies throughout the manuscript.

The methods and findings are clearly presented and critically discussed. Triggering of the GLOF, which is controversially assessed in the scientific community (mass movement impact versus increased lake level), is clearly and critically discussed based on the available documentation, though with a different outcome than in previous studies (Munch, J., Steiner, J., Huggel, C., Basniat, A., Pandey, V. P., Adhikari, B. R., Aaron, J., Mergili, M., and Allen, S. K.: Modeling Cascading Hazards in High Mountain Environments: Challenges and Approaches from the Thame Case Study, Nepal, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-17163, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-17163, 2026). The process chain is simulated with the r.avaflow software, based on both triggering scenarios. The simulation results are critically evaluated, also in regard to possible limitations.

I would certainly like to see this work published and recommend minor revisions. I have some few specific comments which hopefully help to further improve the manuscript:

• L75f: Better replace “cascading breach of” by “cascading GLOFs from”. It is a dam that breaches, not the lake.
• L205f: Maybe better do not mention the thermo-mechanical model of r.avaflow, it is still very experimental and not yet fully functional.
• L216f: “… which is primarily based on GRASS GIS …” Please reformulate, the r.lakefill function is a script that only works within GRASS GIS.
• Figure 3: Maybe it could be useful to show the lake outlines, as the lakes are not so clearly visible in all of the images, and lakes could be mixed up with shadows or other features.
• L300: I think that “autumn season” should be replaced by “spring season”?
• In general: replace “Icimod” by “ICIMOD” in citations.

In addition to that, language needs to be thoroughly checked and improved.

This comprehensive study combines field data, climate/meteorological data, remote sensing data analysis and proces chain modelling to describe the 2024 multi-lake outburst flood in Nepal Himalaya. The study is in general well-written and will be of interest for the audience of the NHESS journal.

Several clarification requests / points for the consideration:

- Dangerous lakes identified in previous studies (Table 1) – What are the specific implications / recommendation derived from this event for revision of existing GLOF hazard assessment schemes that failed to identify this hazard?

- Lake volume estimate – what is the reason for using empirical equations in the study if high resolution 1-m post-GLOF DEM was generated, allowing for precise release volume estimate? The discussion of the well-known uncertainty associated with empirical equations can be then removed from section 5.3

- Modelling – what are the implications of modelling the event for process understanding? What are the implications for model development? please provide the justification of friction angles used (Table 4)

- Climate and meteo triggering / pre-conditions – Fig. 6 shows peak temperatures 2 weeks before the GLOF and peak precipitation week before the GLOF; how this underpin / undermine increased lake water level triggering hypothesis?

- The 90th and 95th percentile in climate analysis and Fig. 6 – is it referring to August values or year-round values? It would be interesting to see whether August 2024 was anyhow exceptional compared to Augusts in previous years

- Section 3.2 – please provide more methodological details on the engagement with stakeholders and local residents; what were the insights about the timing (duration?) of the flood (actually not found in results section)?

- Section 3.5 – overall too brief; please provide more details on this cross-verification with GaoFen and gathering of impacts in the field?

- 5.1 while there is obvious causality between climate change, glacier retreat and proglacial lake expansion, the attribution is not really addressed in this section; are there any implications of this case study for ongoing efforts of attributing GLOFs to climate change?

- 5.4 Future GLOF hazard – please comment on potential magnitude of future GLOFs (smaller vs. larger than the 2024 event?); table S4: please check carefully (bedrock banks instead of lateral moraines made of bedrock; seismicity has no influence on bedrock dam (unless it triggers slope movements); what GIS modelling has been used for topographic potential to rock avalanches?)

- 5.5 DRM – as for the consideration of small lakes – please consider refering to this work: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02758-4; as for the GLOF hazard and risk mitigation frameworks, this may be relevant reference: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095927325011521

- while hazard is a centerpoint of the study, it would be good to analyze or discuss whether / how change of the exposure component modified resulting GLOF risk (see also: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44221-024-00254-1)

S2: how a distinction between floating and grounded iceberg was done (and isn’t part of the defintion of an iceberg that it is always floating)?

S3: please give a location of this area detailed in the image

S9: please add a scale for embedded images

To sum up, I recommend some moderate revisions (especially in the discussion section).