The authors have satisfactorily addressed all reviews and amended the manuscript accordingly. I would like to thank the reviewers and Boris Bohn for their insightful comments and congratulate the authors on making a valuable contribution to the literature discussing the impacts of clouds on the oxidative capacity of the atmosphere.

I have one remaining comment that the authors might think about. It is somewhat surprising that "... other studies which need to invoke cloud chemistry within the model (notably for SO2 oxidation) suggest that the model is capable of reproducing these features with some fidelity" when referring to the average time spent in cloud in a global model with approximately 250 km grid spacing. The extreme non-linearity of the competition between the SO2 oxidation channels and the sub-grid variability in fractional cloud cover, updraught velocity and cloud thickness must surely mean that such a reproduction of the main features is fortuitous, or that there is minimal sensitivity to the time spent in cloud. Intuitively I cannot understand the latter. If it is the former, this means that the current study is reliant on the same cancellation of errors and / or averaging of features for HO2 chemistry as for SO2 chemistry. The authors might like to think about whether a statement outlining such an uncertainty is warranted in the final submission. Only very light touch editing is required before the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Congratulations on a well-crafted and solid contribution to the literature. The paper's good-to-go.