I am generally satisfied with the way you plan to implement the revision and address the reviewer's comments. The change of title and emphasis (from introduction to discussion) is most welcome and will make your a good case study of baddeleyite U-Pb systematic.
You response to the comment on early Zr saturation to produce crystallization of baddeleyite seems weak. Finding a baddeleyite crystals at the "margins of a partially chloritized pyroxene phenocryst" does not seems much of an evidence. I suggest more caution on this point.
To assist my work, with the revised version I expect a point-to-point reply to the reviewers' comments with reference to line numbers where changes were made.
Best regards

Dear Mr Polhner
Thanks for doing a careful revision of the MS. It has improved significantly in scope, clarify of data presentation, rationale of interpretation and robustness of conclusions. The additional information about the rational behind the choice of analyses to define an age (or Discordia) goes a long way in supporting your conclusions. The information about the standards and different common Pb compositions that you added in the supplement are welcome.

A minor point needs changes. The MS contains reference to two papers in review (Sun et al. and White et al.) and unless these MS have been accepted since, these references need to be removed and the related text adjusted. In the case of Sun et al., you may be able to cite a personal communication.

I am pleased to recommend acceptance.

Kind regards
Daniela Rubatto

Dear Dr. Pohlner
your paper is now acceptable for publication in GEOCHRONOLOGY. However, there is one minor change that needs to be done. In order to avoid delays in the publication, this can be done at the proofs stage. You cannot cite unpublished papers!! Please make the necessary adjustment when you receive the proofs.
With kind regards
Klaus Mezger