Please attend to comments from all 3 reviewers: 2 direct and one conveyed by me via an editors comment. Thank you for patience.

Resending this decision with compiled verbatim versions of reviews #3 and #4 in attached file. You should have all this information already but with this message I enter it on the record in a different, still confidential, manner.

Thank you for response to so many suggestions.

Four small issues, all fixable during proofing so long as authors do not forget:

1) Line 402 "assuming. countries where" Something wrong with text or punctuation here.

2) Line 904 "plus the Watson et al. product" because you cite two different Watson et al. references you need to add a date here to distinguish which reference you intend. Same at line 1460, line 812, line 818, line 1395, etc. Search on 'Watson et al.' to identify places that lack a proper citation date?

3) In response to reviewer 1 and reviewer 3 authors cite "HIPPO and HIAPER". But 'HIAPER' represents the name given by USA National Science Foundation to the NCAR Gulfstream V. The HIAPER aircraft performed the HIPPO (Wofsy) mission. No separate HIAPER data product exists unless Britt knows of something with necessary latitudinal coverage. Authors have correct HIPPO attribution in manuscript (Table A6); I only want to ensure that small confusion in the response does not leak into the manuscript. Reference cited, Gaubert et al. 2019, correctly references HIPPO data gathered by the HIAPER aircraft.

4) Lines 1245, 1246: "near-zero mean and trend in the budget imbalance is an indirect evidence of" singular plural problem

Very important product, thank you for using ESSD!