Thank you for trying to address the concerns and comments of the reviewers. Once these have been made in a final version, the manuscript should be ready for publication. Please decide on the final outcome of statements such as further data after Covid restrictions, and make sure editorial things like "??" are removed.

I only have one real concern over the manuscript, and that is how the data and discussion are portrayed.
I find the title slightly misleading, or at least, the paper does not give what I would expect based on this.
i.e. the paper describes a selection of techniques, but these are not ever going to be the most common by any stretch. CL followed by LA trace element mapping will probably become the most common (CL already is). Therefore this paper does not provide a comprehensive review of sample characterization tools – I know it does not suggest that it should, but I find that the title sort of suggests that.
The title also does not mention the use of case studies to demonstrate the methods.
The mapping Uranium section describes four methods – you could even describe these as four uncommon methods!
Rather than fully reviewing any of the characterization methods, the paper presents three case studies. I would prefer to see a fuller review of these methods with a wider range of case studies, or, given the short length of the paper, that it be recast (i.e. not involving much, but a change in title and some sentences in the intro and summary) as a demonstration of some common (CL) and uncommon (synchotron-based) methods.

Dear Troy,
I am happy to accept the latest version of your manuscript.
Regards
Nick

Dear Troy
you paper is now acceptable for publication in GEOCHRONOLOGY.
However, I have a few requests for technical improvements. Particularly some of the figures are quite poor and could be improved.
Would it be better to use U(superscript)4+ rather than U(IV) , the latter is used to describe coordination of U not charge.
l 292: this sentence is a bit strange. It is fine for a proposal but not a paper.
Fig 1
why are some terms written with capital first letter (e.g. Rhombs) and other with lower case (e.g. botryoids)?
Fig 5 scale invisible
Fig 6: yellow nearly invisible, chose a prettier color, tick marks are small
Fig 7 scale invisible
fig 8 abbreviation for second is s not sec in science is U6 the same as U(VI) and you actually mean U(superscript)6+?
Fig 9: out of focus?
Fig 10, very fuzzy, text is almost impossible to read, can you supply a high-res image?
Fig 13 same issues as Fig 8
Fig 14, no scale and fuzzy
Fig 15. not acceptable, too fuzzy, text impossible to read, no scale
Fig 16: totally fuzzy text
Fig 20: Isotopes are written superscript (Nr)Element, 143Nd not Nd143. They are just pronounced Nd143. Do you show the concentrations of the isotopes here or the element. I think the latter in which case the number needs to be removed. You can mention in the analytical section which isotopes were measured, but here the element abundance would be the preferred value, not the isotope abundance.
Fig 21: isotopes are superscripts, fuzzy images
Fig 22 same issues as Fig 9, Figure caption missing

With kind regards
KLaus