Thank you for submitting the paper. I am glad to see that the ACRIDICON measurements are scientifically useful.

Sorry for the long time it took to come to a decision on this paper.

The ACPD version of your paper got mixed ratings (poor to good) ; one reviewers suggested rejection, the two other asked for major revisions.

Unfortunately, none of these reviewers was ready to review the revised paper.
That caused the large time delay.

I got a short review from a new reviewer (reviewer # 4), recommending acceptance subject to technical corrections.

I also looked through the paper, again, myself.
In addition, I informally and confidentially discussed my tentative decision with one of the previous reviewers.

I also addressed several times a second previous reviewer but got no response.

Based on this limited input, I decide as follows:

The paper is accepted subject to minor revision to be checked by me, the co-editor, including reactions to the reviewer #4 and the following recommendatons:

Abstract, line 43: please delete “more confidently and” because the paper also shows up various difficulties to verify the relationships.

Lines 14 to 152: Please avoid the term” it is the first study that” because this claim was not part of the ACPD paper and, hence, was not available for public discussion, and I am not in the position myself to judge that this is indeed the first study.

Instead start the point “a” as follows.” It validates the …” and similar for points b and c.

Line 251: I know of a recent Nature paper by Moore et al. (2017; doi: 10.1038/nature21420) that could be cited in connection with ACCESS-II by now. Please check for available references for ECLIF and DACCIAW and provide explanations to all abbreviations used.

Line 268: “For a long sequence of measurements at cloud base (> 20 s) these uncertainties become negligible.” Please add an explanation for why the uncertainties get smaller for a longer sequence. I do not see that the velocity measurement errors are purely random. Hence, I have doubts that this sentence is strictly correct. Unless you have good arguments, I suggest deleting this sentence.

Line 257 and 284: write 125°C and 0°C without blank before °C.

Line 507: why is there a blank after “measured particle number”. Is there a symbol missing? Or should the blank be deleted?

Line 606: I missed to understand where you introduced “novel” parametrization: I thought the parameterizations are as suggested earlier. Hence, I ask to skip “novel” or to provide a good explanation to me.

Line 607, for reasons given above, I ask to skip “It is the first time that these” and adjust the remainder of the sentence accordingly (there are neither new nor old parametrizations). An alternative could be to call the “novel” ones “recent”.

Line 633: The last sentence should be changed in consistency with the changes recommended for the abstract. I am still not sure that you got much more confidence in the usefulness of the parameterization but got more evidence to quantify the application range and the uncertainties of the models. You may adjust your wording to this impression, or change otherwise, or omit this sentence.

Line 1128, Caption Figure 5. I assume the reference to Figure 3 needs to be replaced by reference to Figure 4.

Thank you for submission of the revised version and the clear responses to the review questions.
The paper is ready for publication.
Congratulations!

Ulrich Schumann