The referees' comments on the first version of the paper were broadly favourable and it seems to me that you have responded thoroughly to their comments. Therefore I do not see it as necessary to consult the referees further. However there are some minor points that I think should be addressed before publication -- I have listed these below. Some are minor points regarding choice of words, but others are concerned with points that concerned the referees -- the 'duration' of an event and the way in which the QBO is taken into account.

Please can you consider these points and provide very brief responses. I then expect to be able to accept the paper.

l35: 'mostly controlled by transport' (not 'transports')

l37: 'seasonality of transport' (not 'not transports')

l60: 'transport'

l158, l159: You have replaced 'duration' by 'period' in response to a referee's comment, but I don't think that this addresses the referee's concern. In fact the use of 'period' adds to the confusion. I think that the key point is that defining the duration of an event as the length of time between the 'central date' and the FW is not an obvious choice of definition. Why is the end of an SSW or VI event defined by the following FW -- most readers would think of the FW as a separate/different event. I think that you simply have to say at the beginning of this section that you will characterise each event by the length of time between the central date and the FW -- and preferably give a very brief explanation of why that choice is made.

l281: 'local effects from events like the QBO' -- first of all it seems confusing to describe the QBO as an 'event', given that the SSW and VI events on which you focus are associated with variation on timescales of 1 week to 2 months, whereas QBO variations are on timescales of several months. The way in which the QBO might confuse interpretation of Figure 3 was if SSWs or VIs systematically occurred in certain phases of the QBO -- in which case part of what one was seeing in the composite pictures would essentially be a QBO signal.

l306: 'Fig. 4b demonstrates that SSWs and VIs occur during virtually any phase of the QBO, making it difficult to cleanly separate the ozone changes from the Arctic and the QBO.' -- this seems an odd statement to me -- if the SSWs and VIs occur essentially independently of QBO phase then surely that makes it easier, not more difficult to separate the VI/SSW effects?

Figure 4 caption: 'purposefully' should be 'purposely'

You have addressed the further minor points largely as I suggested and I am pleased to accept your paper for publication in ACP.