The work presented here is an elegant approach to validating laboratory crystal growth studies using in situ measurements. I think that the authors have done a commendable job of putting the results into an understandable and, mostly, defendable arguments. I say "mostly" because I do have a number of concerns that I need to be addressed before I accept this for publication. Even though I gave the paper "excellents" in the three categories, there are a number of issues that need clarification. In addition, as I will state in my concluding remarks, because of the implications that this study has for operational cloud seeding, I strongly suggest that the authors include in the introduction and concluding remarks some discussion on how the results from this study can improve the current state of glaciogenic seeding.

Issues:

1) I have not read the Ramelli et al (2024) papers, so if this question was addressed there, then it should be reiterated in this paper because of its relevance to connecting what is produced by the burning flare to what is measured downwind. The flare burns for 5-6 minutes and contains approximately 200 g of material, 20 g of which is silver iodide. Two questions: 1) How many ice crystals would be expected to activate from 20 g of AgI and are the number of new crystals detected downwind consistent with expectations? and 2) What is the composition of the other 180 g of material and is it completely hydrophobic, i.e. no possibility of being IN or CCN?

2) Nothing is mentioned about the water vapor pressures in these clouds, i.e. even if ice crystals are activated in supersaturation (SS) wrt ice < 100%, they can't grow if the environment is not >100% SS wrt ice. What is maintaining these clouds SS, just the WBF mechanism? 

3) The CDNCs of up to 400-500 cm-3 seem quite high for a wintertime, shallow stratiform cloud, can the authors reference other studies in such clouds where the CDNCs are this high?

Ramifications for operational glaciogenic seeding

Cloud seeding to enhance precipitation remains a controversial topic, particularly since many cloud seeding operators are inclined to use their "instincts" when dispersing seeding material, rather than taking a more scientific approach, i.e. selecting the time and location to release material based on cloud microphysical conditions. The results of this study have clear implications with respect to assisting seeding programs to improve their effectiveness. I think a word to that effect in the introduction then a follow-up in the conclusions would be a help to the weather modification community.