Dear Authors, thank you for addressing all the comments of the review.
The suggested changes will clearly help the reader. I agree with your comment to Rev #2 that this study will help to evaluate the effect of bioturbation on chronologies and that such a model has a good place for publication in this new journal.
I would still encourage you to present the results of the 3 models as suggested by Rev#1. Additional figures should not be a problem. My other point is the issue of the modeled blank correction. It was pointed out by Rev#2 that line 130 is not clear. I understand that the model needs feeding values of F14C translated to C14. But taking the end of INTCAL13 by default is a bit misleading because it would make an impression that the blank is bound to the limit of the calibration curve. In fact, in the ideal case, the value should be F14C=0. As this is unrealistic I would suggest searching for the lowest reported value of the measured carbonate blank and applying this. It is only a suggestion. In fact, just additional info about the limitations of blank estimates and how your choice might be an overestimate could help to clarify this point. With this, I think that you paper will be an important study helping to improve understanding 14C chronologies of deep-sea records, Best, Irka

Thank you for your thorough response and corrections.
This paper will be an important reference for all deep-sea 14C chronologies.

Dear Bryan and colleagues,

many thanks for considering Geochronology. I am pleased to advise you that your manuscript has now been accepted for publication.

All the best,

Georgina