After assessing the comments raised by the 4 Reviewers as well as those of the intervening discussant and considering all authors' answers, I think the manuscript should be subject to a set of major revisions during this phase. The reviews should address in details the innovations of the manuscript as well as the soundness of the overall presentation and discussion. This should be accomplished in a strong and convincing way, without discounting any of the minor/major comments emerged during the discussion phase.
If the authors are willing to take this route, then the manuscript will be most likely subject to an additional round of reviews, to have the feedback of the reviewers involved.

The manuscript has been reviewed by two of the reviewers who were involved in the previous round of reviews. One of them is still very negative, his/her main point being linked with the apparent lack of predictive capability of the type of correlations they come up with. While this might be true, I urge the authors to clearly state this aspect in the body of the manuscript so that there is no ambiguity to it. The second reviewer still lists some major concerns about the PTF-based nature of the work as well as about the appropriate identification of the scale which is of relevance to the study. The reviewer also lists a series of other points which are relevant, even as they can be considered as minor.
After my own reading, I do concur that the data set can be of potential value for HESS, even as the model does not appear to have a convincing predictive capability. This said, I also noted that the details of the variogram analysis underlying the kriging application (for example, the type of variogram considered as well as the way its parameters are estimated, including a quantification of the associated uncertainty) are missing from the manuscript (Incidentally, is the exponent “9” correct in Equation (1)? Just to make sure). All in all, I do concur with the less negative reviewer and I am willing to give the authors a very last opportunity to strengthen their work. Note that I am still recommending major revisions to be implemented, according to the spirit of my assessment above. In doing these revisions, the authors are also encouraged to avoid leaving out amendments which they claim have been undertaken. To me, it has to be clearly stated that the contribution of the work to the advancement of our knowledge is not too large and it is compensated by the presentation of the valuable data-set that the authors analyze. If this is acceptable to the authors, then I suggest they prepare a revised manuscripts along these lines. The latter will then most likely be re-reviewed.

I commend the authors for the set of extensive revisions they made to the original submission. There are still a few issues which have emerged and that I urge the authors to carefully consider at this time. The review involved provided a set of very detailed comments and I recommend addressing carefully all of them.

I see no reason to further delay acceptance and recommend the manuscript for publication in HESS.