Dear Reviewer,

      Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript titled “Retrieving Stratospheric Ozone Profiles from OMPS Limb Profiler Measurements” (Manuscript ID: egusphere-2025-5580). We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.

    We have carefully considered all of your suggestions and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The modifications have been made to address each of the points you raised, and we believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and impact of the paper.

    A point-by-point response to your comments is provided in the Supplement letter.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. Please let us know if you have any further questions or suggestions.

Sincerely,

Fang Zhu

On behalf of all authors

Dear Reviewer,

    Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript titled “Retrieving Stratospheric Ozone Profiles from OMPS Limb Profiler Measurements” (Manuscript ID: egusphere-2025-5580). We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.

    We have carefully considered all of your suggestions and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The modifications have been made to address each of the points you raised, and we believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and impact of the paper.

    A point-by-point response to your comments is provided in the Supplement letter.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. Please let us know if you have any further questions or suggestions.

Sincerely,

Fang Zhu

On behalf of all authors

Dear Dr. Hoffmann,

    Thank you for your thoughtful and transparent assessment of our manuscript. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the extensive work involved and the constructive feedback provided by both reviewers. We have carefully considered all comments and have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the manuscript to address the concerns raised.

    We recognize that the original submission had significant weaknesses, particularly in the error analysis and the framing of our study's contributions. However, we believe that our thorough revisions now bring the manuscript to a standard comparable published in AMT. We summarize below the major revisions made in response to the reviewers' comments.

1. Repositioning the Paper's Narrative

    Both reviewers raised concerns regarding the novelty of our work. In response, we have fundamentally reframed the manuscript to emphasize that our contribution lies not in inventing a new algorithm, but in providing an independent retrieval pathway that serves as a benchmark for validating the official NASA product, a diagnostic framework for understanding uncertainty structures in limb ozone retrievals, and a methodological bridge towards harmonizing OMPS and OSIRIS datasets for long-term climate studies. These points are now clearly articulated in the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusions.

2. Complete Rewriting of the Error Analysis

    Following Reviewer 2's detailed and constructive critique, we have completely rewritten Section 4.1. We have replaced the misleading terminology of "prior averaging kernel" with "prior sensitivity analysis" to accurately reflect our perturbation-based approach. For the prior sensitivity analysis, we replaced the original comparison of two climatological priors with a uniform +5% perturbation experiment, which now shows prior-induced errors of approximately 5% in the tropical lower stratosphere. For absorption cross-sections, we replaced the original 223K versus 243K comparison with a +2% uniform perturbation following the reviewer's suggestion, referencing Arosio et al. (2022). For measurement noise, we replaced the original single perturbation that produced unphysical negative artifacts with a 100-run Monte Carlo simulation using 1% Gaussian noise, which now demonstrates that random uncertainty remains low (<10%) at most latitudes within the 20–33 km mid‑stratosphere. We have also clarified the distinction between vertical sampling and effective vertical resolution, and we now explicitly acknowledge that our MART-based retrieval does not produce formal averaging kernels. All figures in this section have been regenerated with revised methodologies and clearer captions.

3. Aerosol Treatment

    We acknowledge Reviewer 2's concern that using a climatological aerosol profile is a limitation of our current algorithm. While implementing a full aerosol retrieval is beyond the scope of this revision, we have explicitly acknowledged this limitation in Sections 3.4 and 5, and added a discussion in the Conclusions stating our intention to integrate operational aerosol products from NASA in future work, as suggested by the reviewer.

4. Validation Figures

    Following the reviewer's suggestion regarding the validation figures, we have retained the annual mean profile panels in Figs. 7, 9, 12, and 15 as they provide essential context, but revised the captions to clarify that the relative difference panels show pairwise relative differences calculated for each collocated measurement using Eq. 7, not the difference between the mean curves. We have removed the mean profile sub-panels from Figs. 8, 10, 13, and 16, which now show only enlarged latitude-band relative difference plots. All relative differences are explicitly stated as being calculated pairwise for each collocated measurement and then averaged.

5. References and Terminology

    All references have been thoroughly checked and updated following the reviewers' suggestions. Key references have been added, including Rodgers (2000), von Clarmann et al. (2020), and Zawada et al. (2018). Terminology has been corrected throughout the manuscript, including the definition of tangent point and the distinction between vertical resolution and vertical sampling. All minor comments from both reviewers have been addressed point-by-point in the accompanying response letters.

6. Response to Concerns on Novelty and Practical Significance

    In response to Reviewer 1's general comments regarding novelty and practical significance, we have reframed the manuscript to articulate our contributions more clearly. As stated in the Abstract and Introduction, this study presents an independent retrieval algorithm that applies the MART method—originally developed for OSIRIS—to OMPS/LP observations. The novelty lies in its tailored adaptation to OMPS/LP's specific characteristics, detailed in Sections 2.2 and 3. We reposition the value of our algorithm as a complementary tool for validation and uncertainty diagnosis, not a competitor to the official product. The strong agreement (≤5%) with NASA OMPS/LP v2.6 in the 20-36 km range provides independent validation of the official product, while the systematic differences identified (e.g., above 35 km and in the tropical UTLS) offer diagnostic insights into retrieval uncertainties (Sections 4.2–4.5). Furthermore, this work serves as a foundational step toward multi-mission data harmonization. Applying a consistent retrieval core to both OSIRIS and OMPS/LP lays the groundwork for minimizing algorithm-induced discontinuities in combined long-term climate records. We respectfully submit that an independent algorithm need not outperform the official product to have scientific value; its value lies in providing a complementary perspective, validating operational products, and enabling consistent long-term records.

    We believe that with these substantial revisions, the manuscript now meets the high standards of Atmospheric Measurement Techniques. Our study provides an independent retrieval pathway that will enable the merging of OMPS and OSIRIS ozone records for long-term climate studies. We respectfully request that you consider this revised manuscript for publication in AMT. We are confident that the revisions address the reviewers' concerns and would welcome the opportunity to respond to any remaining issues.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully,

Fang Zhu

On behalf of all authors