Dear authors,

Thank you very much for replying to the reviewers’ comments so quickly. I think all concerns raised by the reviewers have been addressed in your response document, but not necessarily in the text and a few minor issues remain to be fixed. I am afraid I could not always relate your answers to the reviewers’ comments with changes or existing parts of the text. As such, I would appreciate if you could clarify the following points (referring to the issue numbers you defined in your latest response) and edit the manuscript accordingly where needed.
• Question 1.4 (value of \gamma_{ref}): your response provides an interesting justification which deserves to appear in the text. Please ensure this argument appears there.
• Question 1.5: as above, please ensure there is a mention in the text to justify those coefficients. The content of the first sentence of your answer would be an adequate comment just after eq.5 & 6, including the reference to (Stein & Wysession, 2008).
• Question 1.6: where does your answer appear in the text?
• Question 1.7: where does any part of this new analysis appear in the text? Addressing a reviewer’s comment must occur in the main text and summarised in the “response to reviewers” document, not the other way around (even though readers will have access to this discussion). Please find the most appropriate way to comment on the lower values obtained using Wells & Coppersmith 1994 in the main text.
• Question 2.3: (response added to the text p 34, l.25) I am not sure that the sentence starting with “without loss of generality” is perfectly correct or needed. Mentioning that TREMOL v0.1 allows users to enter any distributions and that your choice of uniform distribution provided adequate fits between simulated and real data is enough.
• Question 2.5: (response added to the text p 33, l.14) Please reformulate the sentence “This is allowed for two reasons, 1) the randomness in the initial stress distribution and 2) the selection rule for the next failed cell in the model” to state explicitly how each of those two points is a reason, as I don’t find it particularly clear. Also, fix the typo in the following sentence ”These characteristics enable...” (no “s”)
• Question 2.6: (response added to the text p.34, l.10) Please delete the first half of this response in which you list the three reasons as they are not really scientific reasons and they are not needed anyway. You can start directly with “after validating the capability of the model, constraining the input parameters and analyzing the results, we consider that the conceptual basis of TREMOL can be expanded to model other tectonic regimes.” After this sentence, if you want to mention future work, please do so while keeping the style of a scientific paper rather a project report, i.e. focus on the functionalities that are planned rather than mention what you are doing (“we are working”, “we are also working”)
Finally, two last minor comments
• You seem to have changed “a uniform distribution” to “an uniform distribution” in the whole text. I am no native speaker myself, but I don’t think this is correct.
• I am not sure whether repeating the section name in the subsection names is really an improvement.
I’m looking forward to reading your revised manuscript.
Regards,

Thomas Poulet

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for the clarifications and improved comments in the text. I am pleased to let you know that your manuscript is accepted for publication.
Regards,

Thomas Poulet.