The manuscript presents a timely modeling study on the crucial yet complex role of aerosol effects (AEs) in shaping ozone (O₃) trends over the Yangtze River Delta (YRD) region. The authors employ the enhanced WRF-Chem framework to explicitly and separately quantify the impacts of aerosol-radiation interactions (ARI) and heterogeneous chemistry (HET) across different policy phases and seasons, and project their influence under future carbon neutrality scenarios.

The topic is of high scientific and policy relevance, given the persistent O₃ pollution in China amidst successful PM_2.5 reduction. The study is well-designed, with a rigorous experimental setup (SET1-SET3) that effectively disentangles the contributions of emissions, meteorology, and aerosol processes. The findings, particularly the seasonally contrasting mechanisms (ARI-dominated in winter vs. HET-dominated in summer) and the potential for unintended O₃ increases from PM_2.5/NOx reductions under AEs, are novel and provide valuable insights for future air quality management. The manuscript is generally well organized and written. I recommend the manuscript for publication after minor revisions. Specific comments are listed below.

1. While the manuscript refers to previous validation studies, it would be helpful to include at least one summary table or figure comparing observed and simulated O₃ (and/or key meteorological variables) for the current study period and region. This addition would improve the transparency and completeness of the paper, especially for readers who may not be familiar with the authors’ earlier work.
2. The assumption of proportional reductions (10–90%) across all pollutants is understandable for simplicity but may not fully capture realistic sectoral differences in future emission pathways. Please discuss this limitation and, if possible, comment on how it might influence the overall conclusions.
3. From Sections 3.1 to 3.4, please clarify how the mean pollutant concentrations were calculated—are they spatial grid averages or site-based averages? This information is important for interpreting the representativeness of spatial and temporal trends.
4. It seems that the effects of ARI and HET are independent, i.e., there may be nonlinear interaction between the two effects. This should be noted and discussed.
5. Line175: Table 1 contains typographical issues: several entries for “10% reduction” appear where “40%, 60%, 80%” were intended—please correct.
6. Line 445: Please clarify what specific "carbon neutrality–aligned emission trajectories" are referred to here. Is it the specific 50% reduction scenario, or a broader set of pathways?
7. Ensure consistent use of “Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP)” throughout the manuscript. Avoid alternating between “CAAP” and “Clean Air Action Plan” in figure captions and text for terminological uniformity.
8. Please consistently use "VOCs" (plural) when referring to volatile organic compounds.
9. English of the manuscript needs to be improved.

please see attched pdf