One of the referees accepts your revised paper as it is. The other referee has a few comments which, because of some technical problems, are inserted below Please address these final, mostly minor issues.

Editor

Final comments by the referee:

Yum et al. (2015) provides little support for inhomogeneous mixing. In the conclusion they state, "…the suggestion made here must remain speculative…" This is because, “The dominant feature was the positive relationship identified between V (cloud droplet mean volume) and LWC: 293 of 303 cases…This was a trait that would definitely be interpreted as homogeneous mixing.” Or this could indicate no mixing. I am grateful that the authors directed my attention to this article because in our current analysis of two stratus cloud field experiments, we also find predominance of positive R between cloud droplet mean diameter (MD) and cloud droplet LWC in horizontal cloud penetrations; 94 of 97 in POST (the same 97% as Yum et al.) and 19 of 19 in MASE. Near cloud top Yum et al. found one nonpositive VL relationship indicative of inhomogeneous mixing. Our POST analysis also showed less positive MD-L relationships at higher altitudes. These observations are then consistent with Brenguier et al. (2011), "…that entrainment has little impact on cloud microphysics except at cloud top…" Therefore, throughout most of stratus clouds, except possibly near cloud top, the inhomogeneous notion of consistent droplet spectral shape with LWC that is a foundational assumption of this manuscript does not apply.

Closure experiments of Conant et al. (2004), Peng et al. (2005), Fountoukis et al. (2007) and Sanchez et al. (2017) did use similar models. But closure in the former 3 was provided by in situ cloud microphysics measurements while Sanchez et al. (2017) provided satellite estimates of microphysics. The latter is weak closure, but I did not review that manuscript. The authors may be able to claim radiative closure but not cloud droplet concentration closure, especially when invoking inhomogeneous mixing. The unsupported assertion that inhomogeneous mixing is not "expected" to eliminate the CCN-CDNC relationship does not refute Twohy & Hudson (1995) that demonstrated this. Nor does it refute that good relationships between CCN concentrations and CDNC in subadiabatic cloud parcels is contrary to inhomogeneous mixing. This has been written in several papers (e.g., Hudson & Noble 2014; Hudson et al. 2018), and not challenged by any reviewers or readers.

Hudson, J.G., and S. Noble, 2014: Low altitude summer/winter microphysics, dynamics and CCN spectra of northeastern Caribbean small cumuli; and comparisons with stratus. J. Geophys. Res., Atmos. 119, Issue 9, 16 May, 5445–5463, doi:10.1002/2013JD021442.

Hudson, J.G., S. Noble, and S. Tabor, 2018: CCN spectral shape and stratus cloud and drizzle microphysics. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123, 9635-9651. http://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD027865

Twohy, C.H. and J.G. Hudson, 1995: Cloud condensation nuclei spectra within maritime cumulus cloud droplets. J. Appl. Meteorol., 34, 815-833.

The authors have adequetely addressed the remaining referee comments. The paper can be accepted for publication in its present form.

Editor