Dear Authors,

thank you for the careful revision of your manuscript. Referee #3 has some additional comments; see below. In addition, I also like you to address my minor comments below. After the referee's and my comments are satisfactorily addressed, I will be happy to accept the manuscript for publication.

Best regards
Barbara Ervens

-------------
Editor comment 1) Your response to the following comment by Referee #2 was great. However, adding this information to the text would help clarifying Figure 6. Please add the information of the first and second sentence of your response (maybe in a rephrased form) to the manuscript.

Referee #2: 4. The discussion of the variability of the hail size distribution caused by the different
input parameters focused solely on the maximum and minimum number concentrations
and not the distribution of responses within those bounds. Within Fig. 6, could box and
whisker plots be used to show the distribution of number concentrations within each of
the three setups within a set range of size bins? That would allow the distribution of
distributions, as it were, to be discussed.
Author response: For Fig. 6, the spread is based on 64 parameter combinations with characteristic high and low values, not on 10,000 evenly distributed combinations. The reason for this difference to Fig. 5 is that our aim was to attribute the minimum and maximum hail size distributions to specific parameter distributions. Therefore box and whisker plots would not be well suited here.


Editor comment 2) I noticed that you changed ‘hydrometeor mass’ to ‘hydrometeor mass contents’ throughout the manuscript. However, you missed a few instances. Please replace all ‘hydrometeor mass’ and ‘hydrometeor content’ to ‘hydrometeor mass content’.

Editor comment 3): p. 1, l.2: ‘CCN contributes only moderately…’. Do you mean ‘CCN concentration…’? – Please specify.

Editor comment 4): p. 1, l.4: ‘Cloud condensation’ is a rather uncommon term and only used in the context of ‘cloud condensation nuclei’. Better would be ‘water vapor condensation’.

Editor comment 5): p. 1, l.21; As you changed in the line above and three lines later ‘number concentration’ to ‘number density’, this should be here used too

Editor comment 6): p. 20, l. 6: Do you mean ‘hailstone concentration’ or ‘hailstone mass’ by ‘amount of hailstones’?

Editor comment 7): Tables A1 and A2 are not referred to in the manuscript. If there content is relevant, please mention them in the manuscript text.
If they are not part of the main text, they can be either in an Appendix or in the Supplement. Please look at the ‘manuscript preparation guidelines’ for the formatting.
https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html

----------------------------------
Referee #3
The authors addressed most of my comments. Here are a few further minor comments based on their responses:
1. About my 1st comment in Sections 4 and 5: The authors did not indicate address the comments in the manuscript. The type of figure and information of “Most cases have more graupel than hail aloft, but this reverses at lower levels. We think that the reason why graupel fall speed is so important lies in the formation pathway of hail by riming of graupel” should be included in the manuscript.

2. The sentence added to address my 2nd comment in Sections 4 and 5 “The second most important parameter is the CCN concentration, which contributes especially to the uncertainties of cloud water…” is not accurate. One of the most important effects of CCN on cloud water is through enhancing condensation, as emphasized in many studies such as Sheffield et al., JGR, 2015, Fan et al., Science, 2018.

3. About CCN impacts on hail size, here are the example studies I meant: Loftus and Cotton, AR, 2014 and Khain et al., AR, 2011.

4. A grammatical error in “reflecting that hail itself and melted hail constitutes a major part of the total precipitation”: constitutes > constitute.

Dear Authors,

thank you for addressing all of the reviewer and my comments in detail. I'm happy to accept your paper for publication in ACP.

Best regards and Happy New Year,
Barbara