Please make the final minor changes suggest by the Reviewer with a point by point response:

The authors have answered my questions and revised the manuscript accordingly. The revised manuscript seems to include more necessary information and statements. I have just a few more comments on the revised manuscript.

1. Although the authors have responded to my previous question about extracting the data from the column in the middle, it is better to show domain-average values or other spatially averaged quantities. If the data from one column is used, then it is necessary to show that the column is representative (in terms of cloud properties and cloud response to sensitivity tests) of simulated clouds in the entire domain, and also clarify the spatial variability of the results.
2. The authors mention the general underrepresentation of IWC in the simulations in the revised manuscript (6.1 first paragraph), and I wonder if that prevents some of the simulated clouds from glaciating/dissipating. The cloud in the MIMICA run with ICNC of 1 /L gets glaciated/dissipated, but even for that run IWP seems not as high as observed (according to Figure 14). This may be worth mentioning in the section of Conclusions.
3. It would be helpful to add labels of (a), (b), (c),… to the plots in Figures 7 and 13, and use them when discussing relevant processes in the text.

Authors have responded to the final review. Please publish as is.