The authors have substantially revised the manuscript and have addressed most of the concerns raised in my previous review. In particular, the revised manuscript now includes date-separated quantitative validation using 411 hourly near-surface samples, comparison of the classification-constrained retrieval with unconstrained and PDR-only models, sensitivity analyses of aerosol classification end-member parameters and aerosol-type-dependent lidar ratios, and a more comprehensive uncertainty analysis including model-parameter uncertainty. The discussion of aerosol chemical composition, seasonal applicability, and model generalizability has also been substantially improved.

The quantitative comparison is particularly useful. The combined PDR–Gf classification model achieves substantially lower RMSE, MAE, and bias than the model without aerosol-type constraints and the PDR-only model. These results provide much stronger quantitative evidence for the benefit of the proposed classification constraint than was available in the previous version.

The revised treatment of the extinction-partitioning assumption is also satisfactory. The authors now explicitly recognize that different aerosol components may have different lidar ratios, formulate the corresponding aerosol-type-dependent extinction partitioning, and quantify the sensitivity of the retrieved PM₂.₅ to plausible lidar-ratio variations. Similarly, the Monte Carlo analysis of PDR and fluorescence end-member parameters provides a useful assessment of the sensitivity of the retrieval to classification assumptions.

I have only a few remaining comments:

The new near-surface comparison provides important quantitative validation of the empirical retrieval model, but it should be clearly distinguished from independent validation of the complete vertical PM₂.₅ profiles. As the authors appropriately acknowledge in the Conclusions, direct vertically resolved PM₂.₅ observations from UAVs, tethered balloons, or aircraft are not available. Please ensure that the terminology used throughout the Abstract, Results, and Conclusions does not imply that the full vertical profiles have been independently validated.

The uncertainty analysis based on perturbations of the PDR and Gf end-member parameters represents sensitivity to the assumed classification parameters rather than instrument-level measurement uncertainties in PDR and Gf. The manuscript recognizes this distinction in Methods. I suggest maintaining this distinction explicitly when discussing “classification uncertainty” elsewhere in the manuscript.

I still encourage the authors to improve the data and code availability statement. At present, the lidar data, processed datasets, and analysis scripts are available upon reasonable request. If possible, the processed datasets underlying the principal figures and validation analysis, together with the relevant analysis code, should be deposited in a public repository with a persistent DOI. This would substantially improve reproducibility.

Overall, I believe that the authors have responded constructively to the major concerns of the previous review and that the methodological support for the conclusions is now considerably stronger. The remaining issues are primarily matters of clarification, terminology, and reproducibility rather than fundamental methodological concerns.

The authors have made substantial and appropriate revisions to the manuscript. In particular, they have strengthened the validation and uncertainty analysis, provided a more detailed justification and discussion of the aerosol-classification thresholds, clarified the applicability and transferability of the retrieval approach, better positioned the methodology with respect to existing approaches such as POLIPHON, and established a clearer connection between the lidar-derived dust classifications and ground-based PM10 observations.

The revised manuscript also addresses the specific comments concerning the figures and presentation. Additional statistical metrics and uncertainty information have been included, a vertical lidar-ratio profile has been provided, and the authors have clarified the treatment of the 0.45–0.8 km altitude range. The terminology and description of the retrieval methodology have also been improved.

I particularly appreciate that the authors now explicitly acknowledge the limitations associated with the lack of vertically resolved independent PM2.5 observations. The additional validation based on independent observation dates and the uncertainty/sensitivity analyses considerably strengthen the assessment of the retrieval methodology. It is important that the authors distinguish near-surface validation from direct validation of the complete vertical PM2.5 profiles, and the revised manuscript now makes this limitation sufficiently clear.

The additional analysis relating the DD/MD classification to ground-based PM10 observations is also useful. Although the relationship is relatively weak, the authors appropriately avoid interpreting it as a quantitative PM10 retrieval and instead use it as supporting evidence for the physical interpretation of the aerosol classification.

Overall, I find that the authors have satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised in my previous review. The revised manuscript is substantially improved in terms of methodology, validation, uncertainty assessment, discussion of limitations, and presentation.

I have no further scientific comments and the manuscript can be accepted in its present form.