The main criticism on this paper was related to its size. I think that the authors made a good job addressing this issue by removing unnecessary or duplicated text/material. Also the number of figures has been reduced while maintaining the same level of information. However there is one point where I think the recommendations from both referees have not been followed. This concerns the ozone discussion in section 5.3. On this issue, I tend to agree with the referees. The comparison with Ziemke and Chandra is certainly outdated, and do not really make sense as such considering the fact that long-term column data sets of much better quality have been recently published. If the authors really want to keep the column comparison (which I can understand), I suggest they also include data from SBUV MOD V8.6. E.g. a comparison of Figure 3 in Frith et al. (2014, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD021889/abstract) and Fig.22 of this manuscript clearly suggests a much better agreement with GOZCARD.

I find the new ozone comparison rather interesting. Looking more closely at the plot, it strikes me that the disagreement between SBUV-MOD and GOZCARD is mostly significant in a 3-years period after 1991, i.e. during the post-Pinatubo period! One possible explanation could be that SBUV (and by the way also TOMS) total ozone could have been slightly underestimated during this period due to the impact of Pinatubo aerosols on the radiation transfer at SBUV/TOMS wavelengths. You might eventually consider this in the discussion in addition to the terminator issue (and in fact both effects could add up, since I expect that light path alteration by aerosol would be enhanced at low sun).