Title: CoRSEER: The Calculator of Rock Surface Exposure Age and Erosion Rates for Rock Surface Luminescence dating

Author(s): Arbaz N. Pathan et al.

MS No.: egusphere-2026-1303

General comments

CoRSEER is exactly what the luminescence community needs right now. It provides much-needed standardisation of the method, but also increases the accessibility of this technique. This is a major step-forward in the technique. The CoRSEER calculator is accompanied by this well explained paper, which shows how much testing has gone into it, which gives confidence to the user. It also acts as somewhat of a reference ‘manual’ for those less expert in the technique, which is a very useful addition to the literature. With this in mind, I have a few comments below where this paper could provide a little more instruction/guidance on the technique more generally (beyond just CoRSEER) given that it will be such a key reference paper for the technique. The paper identifies and tackles the issues with defining the saturated plateau at depth, providing a solution shown to reduce uncertainties quite dramatically, and presumably improve the accuracy – an important advancement as anyone who has tried to model luminescence depth profiles will know. This is an excellent addition to the literature and luminescence toolkit, and the authors should be commended for all their hard work on developing it. I include a few very minor comments below for the authors to consider.

Specific comments

• I may have missed it in the paper, but it would be good to know how the uncertainties are derived for the erosion rates. A short description in Section 3.2 could help.
• In Section 3.2, please could you also explain to the reader why you provide the median alongside the best fit. What use could it have, in addition to the best fit?
• The landform dated in Smedley et al. (2021) was a rock avalanche, not just an avalanche. It’s worth saying this explicitly.
• Line 296 – given the importance of using the GOK for fitting luminescence depth profiles determined for feldspar, it would be useful to add a few words to the end of the sentence to emphasise this to the reader. For example, “However, CoRSEER has the flexibility of using r>1, which is important when fitting data derived from feldspar that is not described by first order kinetics”. Or something similar that you would advise.
• Section 5.2 – this section provides some recommendations on the age of the sample used for calibration (i.e. younger are better as they will have been subjected to less erosion). However, it does not mention anything about the factors that can influence the attenuation rate (µ) or sigmaphi. Given that this paper is likely to be a key reference for the community in this technique, it is worth using a short paragraph to emphasise the importance of rock opacity, surficial coatings, aspect and other factors on µ and sigmaphi (e.g. Luo et al. 2018; Meyer et al. 2018; Ou et al. 2018; Smedley et al. 2021, 2025; Fuhrmann et al. 2022; Cui et al. 2024). It would be good to make sure that the reader understands the importance of ensuring that the characteristics controlling µ and sigmaphi of the calibration sample are identical to the unknown sample.
• Section 5.4 is quite short. Could you further comment on whether CoRSEER improves the accuracy and precision of the erosion rates? Perhaps you could also expand more on the issues of deriving transient erosion rates? Are they realistic?

Technical corrections

• Line 356 – space missing before the open bracket.
• Just check how you are referring to CoRSEER throughout the paper. There are some instances where it’s referred to as CoRSEEr towards the end of the paper.

This is a well‑written paper that provides valuable tools for luminescence‑based exposure dating. The tests against previously published datasets are convincing and demonstrate that the tool produces reliable results consistent with the current state of the art. I have only a few minor comments, which are included in the annotated PDF.