The manuscripts reports the activities of the INGV emergency group EMERSITO following the seismic sequence generated by the Mw 5.5, 2022 earthquake that occurred along the Adriatic coast. The manuscript provides details on the installation of a temporary network of 11 seismic stations to monitor the evolution of the aftershocks. As the aim of the deployment was to collect seismic information for future microzonation activities, the authors provide information on the geological setting of the monitored area and on the earthquake data collected. The latter are used to characterize the spatial variability of the site amplification effects considering different signals (i.e. earthquake data and noise) and techniques (i.e. standard spectral ratio and horizontal/vertical spectral ratio), and also to investigate azimuthal dependent features of the site responses. The authors also showed the contribution of the temporary networks in improving the location of events during the 2022 seismic sequence and their focal mechanisms.

In terms of data sharing, the manuscript indicates how to access the recorded seismic data, stored in EIDA and freely available, and provides for each station a pdf file with a summary of the location of each station, maps of the location and figures of the results of the site amplification investigations.

Comments:

As the manuscript reports in detail on the temporary survey, the data collection and the results obtained in terms of site amplifications, I have no further requirements regarding the text. My only suggestion is that the results of the site amplifications should also be made available in electronic format. The summary station reports (i.e., the pdf files) are useful, but I think the role of ESSD is to provide a data product in a form that other authors can use independently. Here the raw data are shared via EIDA, and this is an important point, but it is independent of the manuscript (they would be shared anyway). The main contribution of the manuscript is the detailed site amplification information obtained for each station, which could be used in future microzonation studies or for other purposes.

Therefore, I would strongly encourage the authors to create and share an archive with folders containing the results for each station. Within each folder, the authors could store the results of the H/V and SSR analysis in electronic format (e.g. frequency dependent means and standard deviations of H/V and SSR; distribution of azimuthal dependent results, etc.), allowing other users to use the results of the present manuscript in their own research.

Minor details

1) In the description of how to access the raw data stored in EIDA using WebDc3, the authors could also mention that waveforms and metadata can be easily retrieved and downloaded from EIDA programmatically using FDSN web services.

2) In Table 1, I would add a column summarizing the type of installation (e.g., free field, ground floor of a single store building; basement of a multi-store building, etc.).

The paper details the activities of the EMERSITO INGV emergency task force (devoted to site effect and microzonation studies during significant seismic crises) in Italy in Ancona, Italy, following the 2022 MW 5.5 Costa Marchigiana-Pesarese earthquake. ​ The group deployed a temporary seismic network in Ancona to study site effects and seismic microzonation. ​ The network, operational from November 2022 to February 2023, collected data to analyze local seismic responses. ​ The study included the installation of seismic stations, data collection, and preliminary analyses using various techniques like HVNSR, HVSR, and SSR. The findings highlighted the geological and seismic characteristics of Ancona, contributing to improved earthquake parameter estimates and understanding of local seismic responses. ​ The data is available for further research through the EIDA database.

The activity of the INGV Task forces, as described in the paper, demonstrates great professionalism and good organization, all with the aim of minimizing the harmful effects of earthquakes and increasing the safety of citizens. The paper provides some interesting (and thought-provoking) conclusion points.

The paper reports on the time-limited research, the data collection and the results obtained in terms of amplification. One of my comments is that the results of the amplification (which is the main contribution of the paper) should be made available in electronic form. Also, further research should densify the instrument network to make the potential microzonation more reliable and include a larger number of earthquakes in the analysis, as the authors themselves suggest.

Some minor comments:

Fig. 2 - What intensity or degree of damage do the damage marked in orange correspond to, and what does the brown (dark-red?) damage correspond to?

Table 1 - Indicate in the title of the table to which earthquake the indicated values (epicentral distance and PGA) refer. In Table indicate type of the sensor and its location.

Show the geotectonic figure of the area (in Fig. 1), wider than in Fig. 4.

Fig. 5 - Add a better quality legend, especially with regard to geophysical measurements/research at the locations marked with colored dots.

Fig. 6 - Labeling of isolines with numbers for easier reference.

Table 2 - What type of instruments/networks are involved? SM or WM?