Please consider all suggestions made by the referees. In particular, I
think the following comments are important:

"The authors point out the fact that Kim et al., 2008 was not carried
through to publication as the reason for not doing a comparison. Aren’t
the data still available on the NASA data site? Are the authors (one of
whom was the senior author on the Kim paper) saying that they don’t
believe the HCl measurements? They should state that or do the
comparison."

"The authors are mistaken that Young et al. 2012 only repeated the data
of Mielke et al., 2013. The Young et al., paper, and it turns out Wagner
et al., 2012, also have vertical profiles from the NOAA WP3 measurements
that were part of CalNex 2010. Again, the whole data set is available:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/projects/calnex/."

"My bigger concern is that the authors have not sufficiently discussed
the extent of the disagreement that exists in the literature between
field and laboratory-derived phi(ClNO2) results. [...] In this analysis,
it remains concerning that the authors have chosen to implement a
parameterization that has been repeatedly shown to disagree with field
results, especially without providing sufficient recognition of this
disagreement or sufficient motivation for its inclusion."

Maybe your sensitivity simulation with no ClNO2 production (phi=0 for
R3) or a new model run with a reduced phi could be useful to analyze the
discrepancy between field and laboratory data?