Two referees (the same as before) have reviewed your manuscript. They come to opposite conclusions, but their reports have some points in common, which I would like to stress here:

Referee #2 is positiv but writes that he would have liked to find more physical-chemical information about the different properties of the nucleation process undergone in the meteoritic materials tested. He thinks that more analysis should have been carried out to achieve a more complete study and thus to explain the different experimental results obtained for the materials tested.

Referee #1 is negative. He claims that the identy of the investigated phases remains unexamined. In general, he wants to see a discussion of the nucleation kinetics and the possibility of metastable phases, which should occur before the stable beta-NAT phase is formed and observed. He is satisfied with the modelling part but he votes for additional experiments. His final conclusion is that there is too much speculation in this manuscript.

I am afraid that I cannot accept the manuscript in its present form, even though I am convinced that it fits into ACP. Therefore, I may please you to consider the arguments of both referees carefully and resubmit the corrected manuscript.