See attached PDF-document. I did not check the data sets and the software code. 

This study presents the first high-resolution circum-Antarctic grounded iceberg dataset by integrating Sentinel-1 SAR imagery with a ResUNet deep learning model, multi-temporal trajectory matching, and physical constraints derived from bathymetry and sea ice concentration. This dataset provides an important basis for future quantitative analyses of the impacts of grounded icebergs on the Southern Ocean environment, the growth and maintenance of landfast ice, and the stability of near-coastal ice shelves. Overall, this study has considerable scientific value and application potential, and I recommend publication after minor revision.

My specific comments are as follows:

Although the data publication page provides a general description of the main GeoPackage dataset, it still appears to lack detailed information on the individual attribute fields and their units. I suggest that the authors add a README file or a field-description table to the dataset, clearly listing the meaning, data type, and unit of each variable.

Page 5, Line 123: The expression “0.016 km² (40 × 40 m)” is potentially ambiguous, because 40 × 40 m corresponds to 0.0016 km² rather than 0.016 km². According to the Methods section, connected components smaller than 10 pixels were removed as noise. Therefore, I suggest that the authors clarify here that the minimum retained iceberg area is 0.016 km², corresponding to 10 pixels at a 40 m spatial resolution.

Page 6, Lines 139-140: The authors state that EW imagery was primarily used, while IW imagery was used to fill gaps in EW coverage. However, it remains unclear whether the algorithm directly performs cross-mode matching when two consecutive images over the same region are acquired in EW and IW modes, respectively, or whether IW imagery is only used to supplement spatial coverage and trajectories are continued only within the same acquisition mode.

I suggest adding a set of comparison figures to visualise cross-mode matching, including the EW and IW scenes, the predicted iceberg masks under both modes, and the differences in iceberg outlines.

Page 10, Line 198: The manuscript states that repeat-pass images with temporal baselines of 12 days or multiples thereof were used for grounded iceberg identification for each orbital track. It is unclear whether all Antarctic coastal regions have at least two SAR images available for matching. I suggest that the authors clarify whether any regions had only a single valid SAR acquisition. If such regions exist, the authors should explain whether they were excluded from grounded iceberg identification.

Page 16, Line 198: The authors use SIC and bathymetry data to remove iceberg candidates, but these auxiliary datasets have limitations in spatial resolution and accuracy. In particular, the AMSR2 SIC product has a spatial resolution of 10 km, which is much coarser than the scale of small icebergs. It may therefore fail to accurately represent the local sea ice conditions surrounding individual icebergs. As a result, some truly grounded icebergs may be incorrectly removed due to SIC uncertainty, leading to false negatives. I suggest that the authors further discuss this potential source of uncertainty.

Page 19-20, Lines 424-435: The authors state that the model shows strong cross-seasonal generalisation. However, the main validation area is a 50 × 50 km region in Adélie Land. Whether the validation results from this region are representative of the entire circum-Antarctic coastline requires further clarification.