The authors' response to the reviewers' comments were mostly satisfactory and helped clarify the discussion. The one exception is one reviewer's complaint about the use of OSL as a generic name for all photon-induced luminescence. The authors' defended such use based on past practice. There may be past practice but I think it is a bad idea, and such practice should not be propagated. I was confused by the authors talking about OSL when they meant IRSL. I think the authors should use "luminescence" as a generic term, and use OSL meaning inducement by visible light and IRSL meaning inducement by infrared light.
Thermochronometry is a fairly specialized branch of trapped-charge dating, and I think the authors should not assume all their readers are such specialists. I think,in particular, they should describe briefly in non-mathematical terms the distinction between forward modeling and inverse modeling. I believe the former refers to modeling based on kinetic parameters and the latter to modeling based on dose response curves, but I am not sure. Explaining that will go along ways toward making the paper more accessible to non-specialists.
I found the discussion on intensity preheat plateau and equivalent dose preheat plateau somewhat opaque. One of the reviewers was also confused by this. The authors should explain better the purpose of the intensity plateau test.

I think the paper is ok now.

I disagree about using OSL instead of IRSL, but I do not think I can convince the authors of that and it is not worth holding up publication.

At some point the luminescence community needs to come to terms with what generic terms to use to cover different sets of methods. Current practice is confusing, and I for one will not follow it.

Dear Georgina and team,

I am happy to let you know that your manuscript has now been accepted for publication in Geochronology.

A small thing that I would like you to re-consider: I feel the usage of 'yr’ as time unit unfortunate - especially when combined with a metric prefix - and used in the same sentence where 'a' is used. I don’t feel strongly about this but would prefer the consistent use of one abbreviation only (preferentially annum ‘a’). Any chance you want to take this on board?

Thank you for considering GChron!
Best wishes,
Andreas