Dear authors,

Thank you for the detailed responses to all reviewer comments and careful revision of the manuscript. I am satisfied with all responses except for the following small point. After properly addressing this point, the manuscript will be ready for publication.

The reviewers raised the concern that a major source of uncertainty for instruments with a low spectral resolution is the knowledge of the instrument response function as well as uncertainties in the spectral calibration.

I am not yet entirely satisfied with the response to these comments. In the revised manuscript these points are addressed by stating that

- EnMAP has strict requirements of 1 nm spectral calibration accuracy and 0.5 nm spectral stability
- the uncertainty in instrument's wavelength calibration is corrected for with a spectral shift parameter

These are valid points to add but they don't fully respond to the reviewer's concerns, since the impact of such uncertainties has not been analysed in this study. E.g. there were no experiments where the spectrum was artificially shifted within the uncertainty range of the spectral calibration. This should be clearly stated. Fitting a spectral shift parameter in the retrieval might be a good idea, but it will unlikely solve the problem since the shift parameter will be difficult to fit given the small number of spectral points available for fitting.

Dear authors,

Thank you for your response. It is my pleasure to let you know that I accept your publication. This is a nice piece of work addressing the important aspect of how surface reflectance inhomogeneities affect the retrievals of a low spectral resolution instrument.

Congratulations!

Best regards
Dominik Brunner