“Development of a multi-method chronology spanning the Last Glacial Interval from Orakei maar lake, Auckland, New Zealand” (gchron-2020-23) by Peti et al. provides a well written, thorough, multi-methodology (tephrochronology, 14C, luminescence, palaeomag & 10Be) discussion of the geochronology of their “continuous, laminated, high-resolution” sediment core. All four reviews are overwhelmingly positive (“The manuscript is well structured and well-written. The graphs and figures are all of exceptional quality” – Reviewer 1), and the manuscript will provide a worthy addition to “Geochronology”.

The authors provide a detailed and self-critical assessment of the various geochronological techniques, and I think that they should be particularly applauded for inclusion of data that “didn’t work out” (as well as the authors would originally have been hoped), since a significant proportion of science involves the testing of such novel approaches, and others can nevertheless learn from such experiences. A standalone manuscript, such as this, focussing solely on the chronological aspects of their broader study allows for this much greater depth of discussion than would be the case in a manuscript that “rushed through” the chronology and focussed solely on (e.g.) the palaeoenvironmental data also represented in such records.

May I thank all four reviewers who have provided excellent critiques of the manuscript, and to the authors for their detailed responses to these comments and suggestions.

I have a handful of very minor comments myself (below), in addition to those of the reviewers (already addressed) but, otherwise, the manuscript is ready for acceptance by "Geochronology" and I thank the authors, once again, for their interesting and detailed manuscript, and I wish them well for their on-going research at this site.

Minor comments/suggestions:

L45 (of original submission): “…at the top of…” – do you mean “…towards the north of…”?
L55: This could be a lengthy discussion(!), but is “tephrochronology” itself an “absolute dating technique”? It is if “absolute” ages are associated with the “tephrostratigraphy”… But those ages come from other “absolute” chronological techniques don’t they (e.g., 40Ar/39Ar on the volcanic material itself, or 14C or luminescence from previously dated sedimentary archives containing the tephras in question)?
L58: “Taupo Volcanic Zone (TVZ)” abbreviation already introduced on L50.
L77: invert “…may which disturb…”.
L82: re-word as (something like) “In comparison to this earlier model, the present study…” (for clarification).
L94-95: is there a way to avoid repetition of “crater rim”?
Section 3.1: Personally, I would like the inclusion at this stage of how many tephra layers were analysed, and also a note that these were all visible (rather than crypto-) tephra layers. (This would be consistent with following sections that note, e.g., how many plant macros were collected for 14C dating.)
L134 & 139: change “anomalous” to “anomalously”.
L236: change “were performed” to “was “performed” (or “measurement” to “measurements”).
L260: is there a reason that “Virtual” is capitalised but not “…axial dipole moment”?
L265: Presumably, “strata” (plural) should be “stratum” (singular)?
L314: insert “…[a] similar depth…”.
L374: should this be “…of Earth’s magnetic field”?
L408: change to “These facies unit[s]…”.
L438: delete “a”.
L564: insert “…through [the] chosen mean…”
L583: “…unrealistically low confidence ranges…” – this is unclear. Do you instead mean “…unrealistically precise confidence ranges…”?
Response to Reviewer 3 (RC3-C1): “In order to avoid inflating the current manuscript even more, we decided to use the investigation of the resulting sedimentation rates in comparison with the lithology as the test for the age model’s reliability.” I think that Reviewer 3 was not asking for an (e.g.) pollen record to precisely align (climatically wiggle-match) your record to others, as this would prevent the assessment of environmental synchrony/asynchrony as you say. Rather, I think that the comment was saying that if such an environmental record were also presented, then this would allow “rough” assessment of the reliability of the chronology (e.g., is the Last Interglacial approximately “in the right place”). Anyway, I fully accept that the present manuscript if focussing solely on chronology (rather than palaeoenvironment), and that no such comparison data are therefore included. However, the current wording of the sedimentological argument (L594-596: “The slowest sedimentation rate of the entire sequence is observed in an interval of very fine laminations (facies unit 10; Fig. 9), which is consistent with slow sedimentation. Fine laminations generally indicate slower accumulation rates because only small amounts of sediment are slowly deposited at the lake bottom.” seems circular as written. Please could you clarify this line of argument.

Once again, may I commend you (the authors) for your very interesting manuscript, and the four reviewers for their excellent critiques. Your responses to these reviews are thorough and robust, and the manuscript will provide a worthy addition to “Geochronology”. I look forward to reading further work coming out of your project in due course.

With very best wishes,

Richard

Many thanks to the authors for the revised version of their manuscript, which will make a valuable addition to Geochronology and its readership. This is very interesting work, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for choosing to publish with us.

With best wishes,

Philippa Ascough