Both reviewers were positive, but also listed details lists of points that should be addressed. Based on your responses I am confident that you will be able to utilize these comments to further improve your manuscript.

I am looking forward to your revised version of the manuscript.

Best regards,
Jan Seibert

Dear authors,
thanks for your efforts with the revision of this interesting manuscript.

1) Language: there are surprisingly many small language mistakes
just some examples from the abstract
L2: affect-affects
L27: verb missing after but (the 'are' from before does not work as 'a lack' is singular
L32: include-includes
L37: delete algorithm (PP methods algorithms is double) (btw in this line: clarify too simple for what? Perhaps simplistic instead of 'too simple' is the better word here)
Please go through the manuscript carefully and make sure to correct these language

2) P16,L477: here it is not clear what the difference between linear transition and min/max temperature is. Reading the text here I thought these would be the same approaches (linear transition between a min and max temp for the transition). First on the next page I realized that you in the latter were referring to min/max during a day. Even then, the min/max method remained unclear to me, Please explain better, perhaps include an equation. Actually, I think in general here a table with the mathematical expressions would be useful for all 4 approaches.

3) Figure 1: Sorry, but this figure is rather unclear to me. I mean, the point you want to make is clear, but how does the fig help? The circles refer to some annual mean, I guess, but then the text boxes refer to timing in relation to vegetation, then below the text boxes the lines go together, there is a horizontal line (why?) and below you have two hydrographs, where it is not clear whether you look at one event or a seasonal variation (x axis = month???). Also, why should an overprediction of rain lead to less rain runoff and more snow runoff???? I am honestly confused. Please reconsider this figure

4) While I really like this manuscript and think many colleagues will find it useful, I felt, honestly, a bit lost in the end. You make the fully valid point that most hydro models use the simpliest PPM and this is not good. But then, I miss some guiadance on what to use in simple hydrological models. If ones model is a simple model with say 10 parameters for the hydrology, it is hard to motivate a highly detailed PPM. I guess what I was hoping for is some guidance what to use in different situations (depending on data, model, ...).

5) Most hydro models, even if lumped, use elevation zones, which, at the catchment scale, leads to a transition of the PP, in mountainous catchments. Just a thought, perhaps worth mentioning.

Other minor comments:
end of abstract: it is not clear to me why this should be modellers from hydro and atmo, but filed persons only from hydro, if anything, I'd say the other way around
L408 heavier than what?
L906: precipitation misspelled, please check all references carefully


Best regards,
Jan Seibert

Thanks for addressing my remaining issues, now I dind the manuscript acceptable for HESS. I am sure this paper will be appreciated by many hydrologists.

Best regards,

Jan Seibert