Comments from the Editor:

Referee #2 expressed some concerns about the revised m/s, but is unable to proceed with a further review. Referee #1 is satisfied with the current revisions and recommends publication.

Below I have forwarded the issues raised by Referee #2 and would like these to be addressed in your reply.

Additional comments from Referee #2:

However, I believe the paper still needs revisions to further clarify/justify use of the flatfield model over the LIS measurement - I am not convinced by the author response. It seems they are simplifying the calibration unnecessarily (and adding error), or the worse case - the LIS is not reliable as a uniform source.

Also, the calculated DOLP lab uncertainty at ~4-6% is high. This is confusing to me since the calibration matrix is close to ideal and DOLP is independent of absolute calibration. I suspect there may be an error in their derivation. Multiangle polarimeters with similar capabilities and calibration schemes can achieve < 0.5% lab DOLP error (RSP, AirMSPI, HARP etc.). The authors should revisit this calculation and clarify the discussion.

Thank you for your attention to the concerns of the referees. The article is accepted for publication.