This manuscript presents a suite of low energy mitigation procedures to reject data that is impacted by the low energy pulses. This deployment of the procedure will minimize the data loss and ensure the qualities of the aerosol data products from CALIOP. The benefits of this study would be great for the enriching of CALIOP data products during the period of low energy operation in the final seven years of CALIPSO mission. The manuscript is well written and provides very detailed information. Hence, I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript after the necessary revisions.

The general comments are listed below:

1. Could the authors provide some explanations regarding the different behaviors of the laser energy changing inside/outside SAA? Only because of the solar particle flux? Even though authors state that the mechanisms responsible for the observed variability in the frequency of low energy pulses may never be fully understood. But this is really meaningful, considering the lessons learnt from this mission will surely support the maintain/operation of ATLID/EarthCARE and ACDL/DQ-1.
2. There are too many sections in this manuscript. I propose the authors to reorganize the structure of this manuscript.
3. In section 4.2, is it possible to prepare a flowchart to describe the procedure of LEM, with remarking the difference between the LEM and traditional method?

The technical corrections:

1. Line 40, “…during the last six years…….”, however, the duration is 7 years in the description of the abstract. Please make them consistent.
2. Line 168/174, the full name of LEM is not necessary anymore. The abbreviation has been described in the previous text. The authors should check/address this issue throughout the manuscript.
3. Figure 6, I propose the authors add the “Region 1” in this figure as well.
4. Figure 8, the titles of “day calibration” should be changed to “daytime calibration”.

This manuscript presents a well-structured study on the development and implementation of low-energy mitigation (LEM) procedures to address the impacts of low-energy laser pulses on CALIOP observations during the latter years of the CALIPSO mission. The results show that LEM effectively improves data quality, corrects calibration biases, and provides new quality control tools that will greatly enrich CALIOP data products during the final seven years of low-energy operation. I recommend this work for publication in Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT).