The authors stated in their reply to Reviewer #1 that they removed Pantnagar from the model evaluation. However, looking at Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4, it seems not to be the case. A clarification is needed here.
A discussion on the impact of using more recent inventories in the CHASER simulations on the comparison results with OMI is missing and should be added (see also related specific comment below).
Figure 1, page 6: May be replace ‘during June in 2018’ by ‘in June 2018’ in the title?
Page 11, line 213: not clear what you did here. Did you fix your k value at 100km to the mean SAGE III extinction coefficient in the 15-40km altitude range? A clarification is needed here.
Page 11, line 213: may be replace ‘non-substantial’ by ‘negligible’?
Figure 3, page 13: Do the error bars on the averaging kernels correspond to the standard deviation? This information should be included in the legend of the figure.
Page 14, lines 283-284: not clear to me how the cloud screening approach works. More particularly, how can you retrieve information on clouds based on the HCHO and NO2 dSCD residuals? This point should be clarified.
Page 17, line 253: please remove ‘For analysis,’ at the beginning of the sentence.
Page 18, line 365: I would replace ‘signifying’ by ‘indicating’.
Page 22, line 461: I would add the following sentence (or something similar): ‘This criterion on the SZA is also applied for the selection of the NO2 and HCHO concentrations’.
Page 22, line 462: In order to avoid confusion, you should mention that the good agreement between the JM2 O3 product and ozonesondes was obtained in a previous study and has not been checked here. I would rephrase the sentence as ‘Although not checked here, the JM2 O3 product showed good agreement with ozonesonde measurements in a previous study (Irie et al., 2021).’
Figure 5 (c) and (f), page 23: in order to better distinguish the data points, you could use a y-axis upper limit of about 12 ppbv instead of 20 ppbv?
Page 23, line 489: ‘Schroder’ -> ‘Schroeder’
Page 27, lines 572-574: Given the fact that the comparison OMI versus CHASER is done at a global scale, it is not clear to me why only few days with OMI observations are remaining in July and December after filtering.
Page 27, introductory paragraph on the comparison with OMI (lines 568-574): at the end of this paragraph, I would add a disclaimer about the fact that the comparison results are likely affected by the use of rather old emission inventories in the model simulations. I would then add a Section 3.2.3 with a discussion on the impact of using more recent inventories on the OMI versus CHASER comparison results (a bit like the authors did in Section 3.3.4 for the comparisons at the MAX-DOAS sites).
Page 27, line 582: ‘The spatial representativeness between…’ -> ‘The difference in spatial representativeness between…’; ‘observation’ -> ‘observations’; ‘one potential reasons’ -> ‘one potential reason’
Page 27, line 583: I don’t understand why the word ‘however’ is used here. The fact that the CHASER simulations at 1.1° improve the MBE and RMSE is a further indication that the difference in spatial representativeness between the model and observations is one potential reason for the observed negative bias.
Page 28, line 592: the second ‘although’ in the sentence should be removed.
Figure 7, page 29: Why the CHASER NO2 and HCHO maps are not shown in the figure?
Page 32, line 656: It should be ‘Figure 9’ instead of ‘Figure 7’.
Page 38, lines 795-796: I would start the sentence as follows (or something similar): ‘Overall, given the large uncertainty on the MAX-DOAS profiles (see Fig. 10), the differences ….’
Page 41, line 848: Referring to Fig. S5 is not correct (it corresponds to the discussion on the correlation between HCHO concentration in the 0-2km altitude range and temperature). So the figure on the impact of the MAX-DOAS a priori profile on the smoothing of the CHASER NO2 profile at Chiba seems to be missing. When you will add this figure, please correct the figures numbering in the Supplement and in the main text accordingly.
Page 45, line 910: ‘observatios’ -> ‘observations’
Page 54, line 1094: I would give the literature reference (Duncan et al., 2010) associated to the standard transition region approach.
Page 54, line 1099: ‘clarified’ -> ‘further indicate’
Page 54, line 1102: I would replace ‘agreed well’ by ‘agreed reasonably well’.
Page 56, Acknowledgements: Personally, I would also thank the OMI HCHO and NO2 data providers.