This manuscript describes a global bias-corrected seasonal forecast dataset based on ECMWF SEAS5 and ERA5. While the dataset concept has merit, the manuscript suffers from critical methodological gaps, circular evaluation design, and insufficient rigor in several areas. I have several substantive concerns and recommendations that should be addressed.

1) A fundamental concern is that ERA5 is both the correction target and the verification benchmark. The BCSD maps SEAS5 quantiles onto ERA5 by design. Evaluating skill against the same ERA5 guarantees apparent improvement. This is methodologically trivial, not evidence of forecast skill. The authors must verify against independent observations (GPCC, CRU, station networks), not simply against ERA5. And the brief discussion in Appendix A1 does not resolve this fundamental problem.

2) Line 404 references "six variables" processed operationally, but only two variables (tp and t2m) are documented in this manuscript. What are the other four? The authors must provide systematic analysis for all six variables in the paper. Documenting only two variables is very far from sufficient for a dataset paper.

3) The authors mush provide systematic comparison with existing bias-corrected seasonal products (MSWX, C3S products, etc.). A comparison table (resolution, variables, ensemble size, methods, skill) is necessary to substantiate claims of novelty and complementarity. The authors should also conduct a direct skill comparison at least for selected regions and lead times between SEAS5-BCSD and one or two competing products using the same verification framework. The authors must demonstrate the dataset's added value over what is already publicly available.

4) The authors note the ensemble size inhomogeneity (25 members for 1981-2016 vs. 51 for 2017-2024) and state that "including the operational period in the statistical analysis would therefore introduce an inhomogeneity" (Lines 68-69). Yet the dataset spans both periods. How is the bias correction applied to the 2017-2024 operational forecasts? Are CDFs from 1981-2016 used to correct 2017-2024 data without updating?

5) The SD component is described in only two sentences (Lines 101-103). The authors must provide substantially more technical detail. What exactly are these "relative differences"? How is the "coarse-grid ERA5 climatology" constructed (long-term mean, monthly climatology, or daily climatology)? What interpolation method is used (bilinear, conservative)? How are the relative differences applied back to obtain the downscaled field? For precipitation, are multiplicative factors used?

6) The authors state that precipitation extremes are handled via "linear extrapolation/scaling" and temperature via an "additive delta approach" (Lines 124-125). These are described in one sentence each with no equations or further detail. The authors must add more technical details.

7) None of the skill scores (CRPSS, BSS) include confidence intervals or significance tests. The authors must provide bootstrapped confidence intervals on the global/regional mean skill scores, or apply a field significance test for the spatial maps. Without this, it is impossible to determine whether the reported positive skill at longer lead times is statistically significant.

8) The 1981-2016 period contains a strong warming trend and regional precipitation shifts. Empirical quantile mapping assumes stationary bias. The authors acknowledge this only tangentially (Line 496) and argue it away by assertion. The authors must show that the bias structure is stable over time, or acknowledge and quantify the resulting uncertainty.

9) The bias correction method employed here called pixel-wise Empirical Quantile Mapping (EQM) differs fundamentally from the calibration approaches widely adopted in the initialized prediction community (e.g., Doblas-Reyes et al., 2013, Nat. Commun., https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2704). Can the authors discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches, and clarify why EQM is more suitable than mean-variance calibration for the intended applications of this dataset?

10) The current evaluation is limited to statistical skill metrics. Can the authors provide application case study (e.g., historical drought or extreme precipitation event) to demonstrate the dataset's practical utility?

11) Line 91: "a more complex seasonal climate (reference needed) and..." what's the reference?

12) Line 78: "ERA5 has its' limitations" grammatical error; should be "its limitations"

13) Redundant phrasing at Line 212: "while areas with lower skill..."

This paper presents a valuable and well-documented global bias-corrected and spatially downscaled SEAS5 seasonal forecast dataset. The dataset is likely to be useful for hydrological, agricultural, drought-monitoring, and climate-risk applications, particularly because it preserves the full ensemble structure over the hindcast and operational periods. I found the paper to be well-written, technically sound, and I appreciated the comprehensive analyses of the dataset.

I have only minor comments. Because the dataset is motivated in part by applications to droughts, heat waves, heavy precipitation, and other climate extremes, I recommend slightly expanding the discussion of performance for extremes. The paper already includes threshold-based Brier Skill Score analyses, including 10th and 90th percentile categories, but a more explicit synthesis of how reliable the product is for rare/extreme events would strengthen the manuscript.

Third, the statement that Empirical Quantile Mapping is well suited for precipitation extremes may require clarification. Standard EQM can have limitations for rare or out-of-sample extremes, particularly beyond the empirical calibration range. Additionally, the authors state they apply a linear extrapolation/scaling approach for precipitation extremes outside the historical CDF range, but a few more sentences explaining exactly how this works would be clarify understanding for readers.

Apart from these minor points and a few typographical issues (see attachment), I think this is a strong and useful contribution suitable for publication.

See attached pdf.