The authors did answer all reviewer questions and could clarify all open points. I only have some minor comments/suggestions where adjustment is needed before publication:

1) Reviewer 1: Question on "ground truth":
I think, here it depends on what property you want to validate. There are some "ground truths" available e.g. in situ airborne observations if it is about physical cloud properties such as cloud particle number, size, shape.... In case of cloud classification, I see another limitation. That is the definition of the classification, which always differs depending on the type of observations you use. E.g., a human would identify DCC and cloud fraction different than a lidar. You may clarify in this section what type of quantity you refer to.

A quick search showed some additional literature, which can be used here as references:

https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EA003355
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007JD008768
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022EA002475

2) Reviewer 2: L357-363
Your additional study seems to be quite relevant. Why not including the full result, the table, in the manuscript?

3) Tables:
Table 1 and 2 show frequencies in % while Table 3 and 4 show normalized frequencies (I guess). This can be misleading when just looking at the Tables. I suggest to provide frequencies consistently with % or at least add "normalized frequencies" in the tables 3 and 4 where dimensionless frequencies are shown.

The authors could clarify the last remaining open questions and adjusted the manuscript accordingly.