|I think that the manuscript has been improved considerably, but there are still many points to be corrected, as described below.|
I think that further improvement is necessary to be published.
<About the response to my comment 2>
What does the vertical axis on the right of Fig. R1 mean?
If it represents a 3 km mesh emission, contrary to what is stated in the response document or in the revised manuscript, it is likely that the observation points receive local emissions.
The following is a comment on the revised manuscript other than the above.
Page 11 Line 11: It describes the measuring instruments, but which measuring stations adopt these measuring instruments?
<About the response of my Comment 3>
It is said that the ensemble of models underestimates the measured values of dry deposition velocity from August to September in EA1, but according to Figure R3 it is actually overestimated.
Therefore, the claims in the response document or in the revised manuscript that underestimation of dry deposition velocity contributed to overestimation of summer ozone concentrations are false and need to be reviewed.
The following are comments on the revised manuscript other than the above.
Section 3.5: The sentences are difficult to understand. I think that English native check is necessary first.
Page 16 Line 4-5: I do not understand the meaning of this sentence.
Page 16 Line 27 "summer": A statement from May to July, not summer, is more logical.
Page 17 Line 3-4: According to Fig.9, contrary to the description in the revised manuscript,
the model underestimated the observed values of Vd.
Page 18 Line 7-8: The description in this sentence should indicate that it is a description of the observed value.
Page 18 Line 16: What are "previous theoretical results"?
Page 19 Line 15-25: At the beginning of chapter 5, you have mentioned that you evaluated dry deposition, PBL, and chemistry.
I do not understand why the discussion about the meteorological field comes out suddenly here.
<About the response of my Comment 6>
Page 5 Line 9-10: This sentence is about how to validate the model,
so this sentence should be moved to chapter 3 which discusses it.
<About the response of my Comment 9>
Page 7 Line 2-6: Make a description that shows the correspondence between the model and the university.
<About the response of my Comment 17>
It is understood from Appendix A that various statistics are derived taking into account only the variation due to the location (i) of the measuring station, but in fact it seems that temporal variations are also taken into consideration.
This is because, for example, in Page 11 Line 22-24, as the reason for the high correlation, the high reproducibility of the monthly variation is mentioned.
<About the response of my Comment 27>
I understood that all models must be identified in Fig.2 and Fig.3.
However, since it is still difficult to identify models by color, I hope that at least models that appear in the discussion in chapter 5 can be identified by such as drawn lines.
<Other technical corrections to the revised manuscript>
As there are many necessary technical corrections, I would like you to carefully review the entire manuscript. .
Some of them are shown below.
Page 2 Line 2: "Evaluated and intercompared to O3 observations" perhaps should be "intercompared and evaluated to O3 observations".
page 2 Line 7-8: "western pacific rim" is repeated twice.
Page 8 Line 25: "Table1" should be "Table2".
Page 11 Line 27: "Table1" should be "Table2".
page 14 line 27: The word "other" should be added before "combined influence".
Page 17 Line 24 "Sillman and He et al.": "Et al" shoud be removed.
Page 20 Line 10-11: There is an incomplete sentence.
Some of figures: "EA3" should be replaced by "EA2", and "EA4" should be replaced by "EA3".