The manuscript is well and clearly written and is fluent and easy to read. The content and data fit the objectives of the ESSD journal. For these reasons, I support its publication. I would like to add just a couple of comments that may help to clarify the text:

Line 206: substitute “due to” with “by”;

Line 208: Explain why you expect to find staircases away from the eddies, or why you don't expect to find them in the eddies;

Line 220: add in the text the typical thermohaline properties of the nWMDW;

Figure 4: add the track of these casts.

The manuscript is clearly written, easy to readand presents very important and interesting datasets for the scientific community. The content and data fit the objectives of the ESSD journal. The data availabilty is clearly defined in the manuscript. For all the above I propose that the article should be published in its present form. I am only proposing some very minor corrections:

The numbering of the subsection is wrong and needs correction

line 18: Remove "Then",

line 149: "apart from",

line 170: change "dynamically interested" by "dynamically affected",

line 193: change "energetic" by "energy"