This article describes a detailed chemical box model incorporating the Master Chemical Mechanism to investigate the impact of combined air quality and carbon neutrality policies on O3 formation in Beijing. The results showed that O3 production was most sensitive to changes in the OLE2 group of VOCs, while reducing less reactive but higher concentration species led to larger reductions in O3 production under all scenarios. In general, the idea of the article is clear and the text is smooth. Some details need to be strengthened to meet the publication requirements. Specific comments are as follows:

1. Line 38-46: The introduction of O3 are lengthy and need to be reduced to core point.
2. When the sentence is connected to the reference, multiple sentence positions are misplaced, such as 'and lead to malnourished populations. (Ainsworth, 2017; IPCC, 2015; Mills et al., 2018)' should be corrected to 'and lead to malnourished populations (Ainsworth, 2017; IPCC, 2015; Mills et al., 2018).'. Please revise throughout the manuscript.
3. Line 64-65: 'be' on ' to be account for ' should be removed.
4. Line 87-94: The box model proposed to evaluate the effect of different Climate on O3 production is suggested to compare with other models.
5. Line 149-150: There is a lack of complete bracket.
6. Line 204-220: How to deal with meteorological parameters when adjusting the observational dataset of pollutants in the model.
7. Line 379-382: The points in 'Methanol emissions are projected to increase compared to 2017 levels under the Ambitious Pollution 1.5D goals until 2040' and 'the observed increase in methanol of ca. 25% up to 2040 could have a more pronounced impact on increasing O3 production than smaller incremental changes in more reactive species such as OLE2' is inconsistent with the varies of MEOH group from Figure 3.
8. Figure S1 and Figure 5 can not be found from this manuscript.
9. The point that aerosols have a minimal effect on O3 production was mentioned in previous studies, such as Tan et al. (2020, 2022). The conclusions here should be compared with other studies.
10. Line 437: O3 subscript writing is wrong.
11. Line 466-469: The conclusion of 'Between 2030–2045, the most ambitious scenario, Ambitious Pollution 1.5D goals, did not lead to the largest reductions in O3 production rate. This can be attributed reductions in less reactive species that are present in large amounts in Beijing, such as methanol and the smaller chain alkanes (ALK1 and ALK2)' is right? Please check the conclusion with Line 383-387.

The article titled "The effect of different Climate and Air Quality policies in China on in situ Ozone production in Beijing" by Beth S. Nelson et al. explores how different air quality (AQ) and carbon neutrality (CN) policies in China affect the production of ozone (O3) in Beijing. It delves into the complex relationship between emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter, and the photochemical production of ozone.

In general, this article is well-motivated and written. The intention to evaluate the various emission change scenarios in air quality perspective is prudent. The change in emission is discussed fairly thoroughly in the discussion. However, the change in oxidation capacity and climatology are not factored in the analysis. For example, it is expected a smaller HONO production in the future particularly from heterogeneous reaction sources. In addition, higher temperature and extreme weather are expected due to climate change. I would recommend adding more quantitative discussion from these factors.