The Reviewers have submitted very detailed and important comments about this manuscript. The authors are encouraged to submit a revised paper that ADEQUATELY addresses the comments of the reviewers.

The revised paper will be referred to the referees to establish if all the comments have been adequately addressed.

The authors have not adequately addressed the comments of the reviewers. I agree with the comments provided in the second review that some important issues have not been addressed.
The manuscript still contains a lot of unclear statements or phrases. Some specific comments are given below.
The authors should avoid paragraphs made up of one sentence.
The authors need to check the correct usage of the colon and semi-colon.
The authors still maintain the phrase that their model estimates "all components" of the water budget, when they are only dealing with precipitation, evapotranspiration, runoff, and subsurface storage of water. Other components of the water budget such as interception, groundwater recharge, groundwater discharge, etc are not covered in the model. One of the reviewers pointed out this, but the revised manuscript still uses "all components".
What does "To this scope" in Line 7 of the Abstract mean?
Line 12 of the Abstract, what does "long term mean budget" mean?
Line 13 of the Abstract, what does "Evapotranspiration covers 56% of the yearly budget" mean? Same applies to the % given in this line
Page 1, line 21, what does "2000 mm per year" refer to? Presumably precipitation. It is also possible to receive inflows equivalent to 2000 mm/yr
Page 1 line 22, the claim that the basin is one of the most complex in the world has no basis.
Page 1, last line, 85% of what?
Page 2, lines 1 - 8 are not well written. What do you mean by "diplomatic discussions" when referring to management of transboundary water resources?
Page 2, line 9, what are you referring to by "all these facts".
Page 3, line 9, what are you referring to by "aforementioned problems"?
Page 3, line 10, "resolve the water budget" is not a very clear phrase. If you intend to estimate the components of the water budget, then clearly state this.
Page 3, line 11, which previous studies do you wish to improve?
Page 3, line 11-12, be explicit about the components of the water budget that you are attempting to estimate.
Page 3, line 24, you state that the basin covers "17% of the total area of the country", which country are you referring to since you are dealing with a transboundary river?
Page 3, line 26, you state that "the UBN basin has the lion's share of the total Nile flow". Do you mean that this basin receives or gets the largest amount, because this is what this phrase means?
Page 3, line 29, what is a topographic distribution?
Page 4, is the information given in line 1 - 8 relevant to this paper?
Page 4, Equation (1), while authors have the liberty to use any letters or symbols to represent variables, it helps readers if authors use commonly used letters and symbols. It is common practice to represent precipitation by P. the use of J is rather unusual, although there is nothing wrong with this. This just gives readers a hard time remembering what J represents in your paper.
Page 5 line 1, it would have been much easier to refer to Qki(t) as inflows from upstream HRUs.
Page 5, reviewers highlighted that it is not clear whether the "JGrass-NewAge system" is a new model the authors developed or are utilising. The revised manuscript does not enable readers to understand whether this is a modelling system that the authors have developed or not.
Page 6, line 5, what were the criteria used to define a Hydrological Response Unit. The definition of an HRU will differ depending on the type of model used, and the problem to be solved. As this is the fundamental modelling unit, the manuscript should have provided this information. It seems that the authors subdivided the basin into sub-basins using a DEM. These sub-basins cannot be said to be HRUs. An HRU has a very specific meaning and not necessarily the same as a sub-basin.
Page 6, line 8, what was the rationale for dividing the basin into 402 sub-basins? Reviewers made the same comment which has not been addressed. Is a sub-basin similar to an HRU? In some models, a sub-basin is made up of possibly more than one HRU.
Page 3 Section 3.2 Precipitation. The authors should have provided information about how accuracy of the precipitation product they used. Provide the error level established in similar environment by previous studies.
Page 6 and 8, does ET in Equation (2) refer to reference evapotranspiration? In Equation (3) ET(t) seems to represent actual evapotranspiration. You need to clearly state this as you are using almost the same letters to represent different variables.
Page 8, line 6, S(t) is not groundwater but subsurface storage of water which includes soil water. Smax should be maximum subsurface storage capacity, not just maximum storage capacity.
Page 8, line 11, how was that automatic calibration done? What was the objective function used?
Page 9, 3.4 Discharge. The authors should have given a basic description of the ADIGE model used. It does not help readers to refer to a paper that has not been published. The reviewers highlighted this problem, and this has not been addressed.
Page 9, line 18, explain the exact objective function used. At this stage, readers do not have knowledge about which parameters were being calibrated.
Page 10, line 6,how many rainfall stations were used to correct the precipitation estimates? Was this done in this study?
Page 10, line 12 -13, be explicit regarding the data used for validation. Reviewers highlighted this problem. How many river flow stations were used for validation? How were they selected?

Page 12, Figure 3b. The use of %share to express amount of rainfall received in a season is rather confusing. Is the seasonal contribution important? This is also done on Page 11 when describing precipitation
Page 13, given that the estimation of actual evapotranspiration involves some uncertainty, which ET rates are acceptable, GLEAM or your modelled values, and why?
Page 14, Table 3, since the structure of the model has never been presented, a reader does not have an idea about the meaning of the parameter values given in this table.
Page 15, the manuscript describes some forecasting done. It is not clear how this was done. Reviewers also raised this point.

The authors need to be consistent when referring to a table. Sometimes they write "table X" and at other instances this is "Table X". The correct way is "Table X".

Similarly sometimes they write "equation (X)" and at other times "Equation (X)".

When referring to an illustration, this should be "Figure X" and not "figure X".

Minor corrections suggested in the uploaded PDF file should be undertaken