I thank the authors for a well-organized and written discussion of their new ozone profile product.  They have clearly laid out the changes from the previous version and how these have led to an improved product.  I would, however, like to know a bit more about the calibration choices that were made.  I will appreciate if the authors can address my questions below, and where appropriate modify the manuscript text to clarify points regarding their approach.

Section 2.5.2

It's clear that using a measured irradiance that includes seasonal and long term errors will result in significant ozone errors.  What is not clear is the best approach to manage this problem.  The authors choice to use daily solar irradiance measurements more or less forces them to find a correction for Working diffuser irradiance measurement errors.  Have the authors performed a trade study that indicates this is really the optimum solution?  An often-heard claim is that normalization using daily solar measurements is required in order to adequately account for detector variations and anomalies.  Such an assertion must really be demonstrated for each instrument, and actually for each product.  What would the ozone product performance be if the authors utilized a GEMS irradiance fixed in time near the start of the mission?  Does all the extra effort creating daily corrections really improve the product compared with simply normalizing by a Day 1 solar?

Regardless of which method is used to generate the solar irradiance, there is no discussion of how long-term radiometric changes in the instrument are accounted for.  This is not something soft calibration is capable of dealing with.  The authors fail to discuss which of the two GEMS solar measurements they are using, Reference diffuser or Working diffuser.  But given the temporal density of Fig. 3, I can assume they are using Working.  Why not use the Reference instead and avoid most of the diffuser degradation?  BTDF issues can be dealt with by choosing Reference measurements at similar solar incidence angles.  This will typically yield two useful solar measurements per year, which can then be used to interpolate in time.  I can understand that this approach may not work as well for the ozone product as the method the authors have chosen.  But have the authors considered such alternatives?  The authors should discuss alternative approaches and why they believe the chosen approach works best.  They should also the discuss the drawbacks (i.e. long-term trends) with their chosen approach.

Section 3, Line 334

I had to read this line several times before I understood that the authors are referring to a specific viewing condition when they use the phrase "sideways solar irradiance".  I recommend using more precise terminology (e.g. involving SolZA) so as not to confuse the readers.

Figure 13

This figure is somewhat confusing.  It is not possible to see any data points from OMPS, yet there are some faint points with an unknown color (in the 330-390 DU range) that are not assigned to any mission.  Please provide a better figure or clear up the confusion by describing in the figure caption.