Please see the attached file.

Review of Manuscript # egusphere-2023-874: “Simulating the seeder-feeder impacts on cloud ice and precipitation over the Alps” by Dedekind et al.

General comments:

The authors used the COSMO model and a two-moment microphysics scheme to simulate a real case of orographic clouds over the Alps and conduct sensitivity experiments to investigate how the seeder-feeder process influence cloud and precipitation development. Overall, the manuscript is well organized, and the logic is clear. The findings in this study can enhance the understanding of impacts of seeder-feeder process. I would recommend minor revision for this manuscript. Specific comments are listed as follows for consideration.

Specific comments:

1. Experiment Design and Simulation Evaluation: The authors should provide more details on the experiment design and simulation evaluation. How about the evolution of simulated clouds compared to the observed? How about the comparison in precipitation? When to remove the ice particles in the sensitivity experiments? Only during the two time periods analyzed in this study?
2. Uncertainties in Microphysics Scheme: The study is mainly based on the simulations of a real case, so the authors should conduct further analysis on how the uncertainties of the microphysics scheme, especially the parameterization of some microphysical processes such as riming and depositional growth influence the seeder-feeder process.
3. Is it possible to give some average vertical profiles of process rates in difference simulations to show their changes clearly?
4. Line 33: “Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen” -> “Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen (WBF)”
5. Line 39: “sedimenting ice particles from the feeder cloud” or “from the seeder cloud”?
6. Line 99: “CLC” or “CAF”? How does the model define “cloud area fraction”? based on cloud mixing ratio?
7. Line 114: “Fig. 1a” -> “Fig. 1b”
8. Figure 2: Colorbar is not clear.
9. Line 158: “13:00” -> “13:30”?
10. Figure 3: What’s “occurrence frequency of the total cloud tops”?
11. Lines 234-236: The authors analyzed correlation coefficient here. I would say higher coefficient does not necessarily mean higher contribution, especially if the authors calculated correlation coefficient using simultaneous time series. The ice growth through deposition can contribute to the later surface precipitation. The authors should rewrite the related analysis and draw conclusions carefully.
12. Section 3.2.5: Does the microphysics scheme include rime splintering process? How does this process rate change in sensitivity experiments?
13. Line 286: “SIP” -> “secondary ice production (SIP)”
14. Line 326: “Figs. 10a, b” -> “Figs. S10a, b”?