General comments

This manuscript continues the important work of enabling an automated mechanism construction for alkene ozonolysis.  The authors focus on predicting among the most important atmospheric impacts of ozonolysis, namely primary carbonyl, OH, and stabilized Criegee intermediate (SCI) yields.  The work provides a comprehensive and critical review of the many facets of the ozonolysis of the major classes of alkenes and helpfully highlights important knowledge gaps.  The presentation of chemical rationales for trends in yields is largely illuminating.  The authors do a good job of clearly presenting current shortcomings of the protocol being presented here, providing other investigators a good sense of the important outstanding questions.  In sum, this manuscript makes an important contribution to mechanistic atmospheric chemistry.

Specific comments

1. Section 2.1 implies that the tertiary C in a tert-butyl group bears a partial positive charge, significantly lowering the yield of the tert-butyl substituted CI.  The authors should explain more how the tertiary C is partially positive, given all of the hyperconjugation of the C-H bonds.
2. In Section 2.3, it would be worthwhile to rationalize briefly the destabilizing effects of a vinyl group compared to a H, methyl, or isopropyl group.
3. In Section 2.8.3, contrary to what the authors assert, I think that there is some reason to question the generality of the OH formation from the carbonyl-hydroperoxide pathway.  The reason is that radical formation requires the hydroperoxide to be signficantly chemically activated, and larger hydroperoxides will be more prone to collisional stabilization.

Technical comments

None.

This paper describes a formulism for estimating the yields of Stabilized Criegee Intermediates, primary carbonyls, and OH radicals produced from the ozonolysis of a variety of alkenes. The formulism is designed to assist in the automatic generation of chemical mechanisms for use in, for example, GECKO-A and the Master Chemical Mechanism. The paper is part of a longer series, which describe kinetics and branching ratios for alkanes, alkenes, and aromatics. The paper will, I suspect, be of most use to a small number of people involved in mechanism generation, but should serve as a useful data base on alkene ozonolysis, and could also provide estimation methods for product yields with which to compare new experimental data.

The paper appears more like a review than a critical evaluation of the data available. This is due in part to the limited number of measurements that have been made, and to a lack of precision of older measurements. Consequently, there is sometimes no real basis for the evaluation. However, the authors have done a good job in outlining the limitations of the data set, and in selecting the best values to use. So, I think overall, this is a valuable addition to the literature, and will find usage within the community.

Some minor comments follow.

Line 42. Mauldin II should be Mauldin III (although I don’t think it’s really necessary to put the II or III in the text, just the references should suffice.

Line 86. “This”: Be specific as to what “This” is. The paper? The protocol?

Line 121 and Figure 3. I think there’s a discrepancy here. The larger carbonyl from 1-butene would be propanal, but the text says the yield is 0.35, while the Figure caption gives 0.64. Please check my logic.

Line 181. I couldn’t find the Wang et al, 2020 paper in the reference list.

Line 195. “The acetate” is strictly an anhydride (but I see why the authors used the terminology).

Line 358. Please check. Methyl vinyl ketone would be –C(=O)R not –C(=O)H?

Lines 427-431. Maybe these two sentences could be written with a little more clarity. I think the logic is correct – the larger Criegee takes away more of the energy, but also has a higher probability for stabilization. It is not totally clear from the text which wins. I think line 429 is the key, where it’s not clear whether it’s talking about nascent CI* or SCI. Please re-read closely.

Line 471 is a little ambiguous in the use of respectively (there are three clauses). I think Fvhp applies to (CH3)2COO, and F13c to CH2OO, so can probably just switch these.

Line 689 (reaction R9) Implies the formation of an C–ONO bond, while the text a little later refers to a nitroalkyl peroxy radical, i.e. a C-N bond.

Line 690 (reaction R10) Product missing a carbon atom.

 Line 691 (reaction R11) Product missing a carbon atom.

Table 3. Units in top row should be cm^3 molecule^-1 s^-1.

Line 836. Not clear how to get 3-methyl-2-pentanone from that precursor anyway.