Thank you for carefully addressing the reviewers concerns. I think you have addressed them well and I recommend publication with minor corrections (likely will not need to be re-reviewed). The three items I would like you to consider are:

1.) Lines 333 – explicitly state the indicative meaning used for the marine terraces. Maybe include an additional table and reference that table here (I know you give a value on lines 726 but it isn’t clear how much this value varies across your study area).

2.) I think GIA is currently not adequately discussed (as suggested in the earlier review by Paula Marques Figueiredo). I appreciate the efforts and the addition of Figure 3 (which definitely strengthens your argument) but some questions still remain that likely have bearing on your findings (and particularly your uplift rate calculations. I agree with you that the tectonic signal likely dominants the differences in marine terrace elevations, but as written, the manuscript seems to discount GIA, prematurely. For example, GIA can result in 10’s of m in differences in sea level elevations across a N-S transect (e.g. Potter et al., 2003; Creveling et al., 2017; Simms et al., 2016). Figure 3 assumes a MIS5e RSL that is constant across the area, which it likely was not. Furthermore what elevations did you use for “sea levels” during MIS5e for Figure 3? GIA-induced differences are even greater for MIS5c. This influence would also apply to your later estimates of uplift (line 630) and errors (line 420). The variability is likely 5-10 m for MIS5e but could be as much as 20-30 m across the WSAC during MIS5c. This should be acknowledges as a limitation of your uplift estimates (section 5.a).

I think much of this could be dealt with by adding to Lines 422-427. Maybe look at the global model of Creveling et al. (2017) to estimate how much variability would be expected across this margin and mention that this is still less than the X m of differential elevations found along the margin – you could even include that in your error terms as uncertainty for the sea level estimates.

3.) The third is relatively minor, could you clarify the difference between your “inner edge” and the commonly used “shoreline angle” a little earlier in section 3.1. Maybe the description on line 315 of the inner edge could be moved to line 293, when it is first introduced.

I have made some other minor comments on an annotated PDF – mostly grammatical. Once these couple items are addressed, I think this will be ready for publication. It will make a very valuable addition not only to the WALIS special issue (and database) but also the tectonic setting of the Andes. Thank you for considering our special issue for publication of your work.

Thank you for addressing my comments. I am pleased to recommend publication. Your manuscript will make a valuable contribution to the database and studies across the west coast of South America.