Dear Dr Olierook
I am generally satisfied on how you are planning to address the reviewers’ comments. There are however two points that require additional attention and data.

1. The lack of mineral chemistry of the material analysed is not fully addressed. Mineral chemistry can be retrieved also after LA analysis. BSE images are a good start, but mineral chemistry is eventually needed. The same for phengite versus white mica, which can be analyzed after the fact; the petrographic analysis based on grain is not sufficiently robust.
I thus request addition of analyses of mica domains beside the LA pits and of white mica versus phengite domains.

2. Composition of standard CK001B. I appreciate that details for this material are in review, but this does not prevent a statement to be added here of the general chemistry of the mica. We do not need the full analyses, which I suppose are included in the other publication, but at least an end members %.

Regards
Daniela Rubatto
Associate Editor

Thanks for the revision of the manuscript and for addressing all points raised by reviewers and editor in a satisfactory manner.
I am pleased to recommend acceptance.
Kind regards
Daniela Rubatto

Dear Dr. Olierook
thank you for submitting the revised version of your paper. It is now acceptable for publication and can almost be published as is. However, Fig 11 in your submitted version appears messy on my screen. It looks like two images are superimposed on each other with the bottom one shining through the overlying version. In addition the right half of the image is missing. Attached is a screenshot that shows the problem. Please submit a good copy of this figure.
With kind regards
KLaus Mezger