This study conducts systematic post‑event field surveys and hydrodynamic numerical simulations for the storm surge disaster induced by Typhoon Hato in Guangdong Province. This work produces valuable ground truth data and model validation references for estuarine storm surge research. However, several aspects of the article require improvement.

Major comments:

1. The analysis of damage mechanisms for coastal hazard bearing carriers is insufficient. The manuscript fails to summarize typical destructive patterns or identify vulnerable points of different coastal facilities. A thorough exploration of these vulnerable links is essential to support targeted disaster prevention suggestions in the Discussion Section.
2. Descriptions of storm surge numerical model parameters is insufficient. Essential settings for the hydrodynamic model require full documentation.
3. The Discussion lacks actionable, policy relevant outputs for local decision makers. While the study effectively characterizes disaster severity and the regional heterogeneity of inundation risk, it remains largely descriptive and does not translate these spatially variable findings into concrete, implementable countermeasures.
4. The manuscript includes comparisons between simulated water levels and observed data, yet it lacks sufficient quantitative evidence for model validation. Statistical error indices need to be supplied to quantitatively demonstrate model performance.
5. Table 6 presents a valuable classification of inundation types for coastal sites. These distinct dike failure and inundation modes receive little substantive discussion. Further interpretation of these categories can strengthen the mechanism analysis of coastal damage.

Minor comments:

1. I suggest the authors add the geographic locations of observation sites mentioned in Table 3 onto spatial maps. This improvement can enhance visual readability for readers.
2. Line 299: The word “improving” is wrongly split into “im‑proving”.
3. Inundation depths are reported in centimetres within Table 6 but in metres in the main text, creating potential confusion for readers.
4. The authors have to improve and rewrite the Conclusion Section in a crisp manner.

This paper presents valuable post‑event field survey datasets and hydrodynamic model validation for the destructive 2017 Typhoon Hato storm surge flood across the highly‑urbanized Pearl River Estuary. Overall, the work is well‑structured and delivers meaningful observational evidence, yet several textual inconsistencies, methodological gaps and presentation defects need revision before formal publication.

1. Table 1 lists 2024 remote‑sensing imagery and national ocean product statistics. Since Typhoon Hato occurred in 2017, explicitly explain how these late‑period datasets support the 2017 disaster reconstruction, or remove irrelevant entries if they are not actually used in analysis.
2. In Section 2.3, the reliability classification framework (Table 2) for field‑survey evidence lacks quantitative threshold definition. Please add measurable criteria to distinguish “reliable”, “less reliable” and “reference‑only” field indicators, rather than purely descriptive qualitative descriptions.
3. Table 3 provides surge and tide‑level records for tidal stations, yet it lacks clear definition of storm‑surge variables. Clarify whether the “Surge (cm)” column represents residual storm‑surge component or absolute water‑level readings, and double‑check unit consistency across the whole table.
4. When interpreting simulation‑observation mismatches in Discussion section, the authors point out small‑scale topography and coastal‑structure limitations of regional hydrodynamic models. It is suggested to add one short paragraph discussing which specific local defense facilities (seawalls, groins) most likely cause those spatial deviations.
5. While the paper reports good overall agreement, Figure 6 shows notable deviations in some areas (e.g., Yantian, Bao'an). The authors attribute these to topographic uncertainties and simplified parameterization (lines 257–263), but this explanation remains qualitative. I recommend a more systematic discussion: could these discrepancies be due to the absence of pluvial or fluvial contributions in the extracted simulation results? 
6. Grammatical errors and typographical mistakes appear throughout the text. For example, “The simulated and observed inundation extents was presented in Figure 5” contains subject‑verb disagreement; Table 4 shows “51,5424.4” with incorrect thousands separators for economic loss values. Please conduct full manuscript proof‑reading and standardize numeric formatting for all tables and main‑text figures.
7. Several in‑text citations miss proper punctuation and formatting. For example, reference citations like “(Yang et al., 2019). These findings demonstrate…” should maintain consistent punctuation style across the whole manuscript; please standardize all in‑text citation formatting following NHESS template requirements.
8. The informal phrase “storm water” repeatedly appears in Section 3.1, this should be replaced by the standard term.
9. Some references (e.g., Du et al., 2024a,b) are cited but not clearly distinguished in the text; ensure proper differentiation when citing multiple works from the same author/year.
10. Line 185: Table 5 caption refers to "Hato typhoon storm surge" - be consistent with "Typhoon Hato" throughout.