The authors have done a good job responding to the reviewers’ comments. I have two general suggestions to consider and a series of technical corrections to be addressed prior to publication.
1) Both in the abstract and in the conclusion, reference is made to the summed impact of all the precursor reductions, but I wonder if that is a relevant metric. Because of the non-linearities of the system, one would assume that a model run implementing all of the reductions simultaneously would get a different result that the sum of the individual reduction runs. If this is the case, is the sum of individual runs really a meaningful number?

2) To me, a more sensible ordering of the Figures 4-8 and related text would be:
Fig 7, Figure 4, Figure 8, Figure 5, Figure 6
but I think the authors’ original ordering is not too problematic, so if they wish to leave it as is, I’m fine with that.
Technical corrections:
P1, Line 29 – CLE needs to be spelled out (or better yet add the abbreviation in Line 24)
P2, Line 60, ‘proscribed’ should be replaced with ‘prescribed’
P3, Line 68, should be ‘meeting these standards is complicated’
P5, Line 147 – reference appears to be missing for isoprene and DMS emissions
P7, Lines 215-219 This is phrased very awkwardly and makes it difficult to understand what the authors are trying to say. Is this a reasonable alternative: “ We focus here on changes to the dry mass of surface PM2.5 derived from changes in the emissions of primary PM2.5 and in secondary PM2.5 precursor gases, with the expectation that particle-associated water will change by roughly the same amount.”?
P 14, Lines 424-425 I don’t understand the point of this sentence, please clarify.
Figure 3 – change ‘emitted PM2.5’ to ‘Primary PM2.5’ in legend to be consistent with text. I assume that the statistics that are quoted above each panel are for comparisons between the hourly values rather than the monthly values, but that is not specified in the caption, nor in the text.