Please find my review attached below. 

OVERALL COMMENTS:

This manuscript presents Lagrangian LES simulations of marine cloud transitions along a six-day trajectory. I recommend its publication after the following comments are adequately addressed.

MAJOR COMMENTS:

The discussion of the physical processes influencing the results is somewhat underdeveloped. For instance, in Figure 4, entrainment, coupling, and radiative heating are shown in different units, which makes direct comparisons between them challenging. While these processes can be qualitatively associated with the evolution of LWP, the relative importance of each remains unclear, weakening the overall argument. The role of precipitation is neglected. In particular, a relevant mechanism to consider is the evaporation of drizzle below the cloud base, which dampens buoyancy flux, weakens turbulence, and reduces entrainment. Seee the Introduction section in Uchida et al. (2010, doi:10.5194/acp-10-4097-2010) for a summary of this mechanism. How does this process influence the results presented in this study?

As the authors noted, there have been many papers on the ACI in marine shallow clouds. It would greatly benefit the readers and strengthen and current paper if the authors can more clearly connect their new findings to the existing body of work. This is not about advertising any previous studiy, but about highlighting the novel aspects of the current paper through thoughtful comparison. For example, the diurnal LWP pattern, higher at night and lower during the day, is reminiscent of the results in Sandu et al. (2008), who proposed an explanation for this behavior. While a comprehensive literature review or exhaustive testing of all previous hypotheses is not necessary, a deeper and more explicit discussion of how this study builds upon or diverges from past work would be highly valuable.

MINOR COMMENTS:

I found it concerning that some well-established ideas are cited using only recent publications, rather than the original sources. For example, citing Wall et al. for ERFaci and Hoffmann et al. (2023) for Eq. 6. Even a quick check of the cited papers would tell references to the original sources, which the authors should cite directly to properly acknowledge the historical development of these concepts.

Please clarify the connection between Eqs. 7-9 and Eq. 1. Are these equations intended as proxies for specific terms in Eq. 1? Please state clearly.

Line 149: Why does the current work focus only on two aerosol scenarios? More specifically, did the authors observe any indication of the previously reported "inverted-V" shape in the LWP-N relationship? If not, it is worth noting. This comment is not meant to cast doubt on the results, but rather to encourage a more complete discussion of their implications.

Line 180: The term "similar" seems too vague here. Please be more specific about the particular features the authors intended to highlight.

TECHNICAL ISSUES:

Line 129: It seems that LWP refers to the sum of LWPc (cloud LWP) and RWP. If this is the case, please state it explicitly.

Line 169: Should this refer to panel e instead of d? Please double-check.

Since Section 2 is titled "Methodology," Subsection 2.4 should be moved to a new section for clarity and consistency in the manuscript structure.