I was allready requested as referee in the first submitted version of the paper (reviewer #2)

For the general description of the paper content, please refer to my former report.

All my comments and suggestions have been carefully considered, and corrections have been conscientiously done.

The paper was allready from good quality as I wrote my first report, after corrections, the paper gain in quality and is ready to be published.

I have no objection to publish the manuscript in the current state, therefore I suggest that the manuscript should be "accepted as is"

I notice just one very minor typo point: "Estellés" shoul be written in the same way in the co-author line (accent is missing), in the citations in the text and in the references list, where there is a typo with the accent: Line 789: "Estelle´s" - > Estellés

The authors present an evaluation of on-site calibration procedures applied to two SkyNet Prede POM-01 sun/sky photometers.  The work is of good quality, and what has been presented has been done so thoroughly.  However, I believe major revisions are in order before this paper can be considered for publication.  I have identified gaps that need to be addressed, potential inaccuracies or misconceptions that should be addressed, found numerous issues with grammar and several typos, made constructive suggestions for organization that will improve clarity, and provided numerous recommendations to tables, equations, and figures in the attached PDF file.

Publisher’s note: the supplement to this comment was replaced by a new version on 8 January 2024. The original version was lacking the comments.