Based on the two reviews, the authors have made substantial changes to the structure of the manuscript and the methods used. The study is stronger now, mainly because of the new quantitative approach.
I believe the manuscript is now ready for publication in Esurf, and I thank the authors and the two reviewers (J.D. Jansen and S. Brocklehurst) for a constructive review process.
D.L. Egholm

The authors appear to have done a thorough job addressing the reviews, and I concur for the most part with the AE's report. However, the paper still suffers a bit in terms of being readable.
The title is far too long and detailed; I think something more direct like "Lithology dominates landscape form in the Upper Rhone Basin" would be much better.
The abstract suffers also from a bit of redundancy and also indirect or runon sentences. There are also some parts that are just unclear. For example, what does it mean that "The Rhône basin has been affected by some of the highest uplift rates..." -> highest in the world? In Europe?

The authors should re-write the abstract to make things a bit more clear. I would suggest the following order:
It has been hypothesized that lithology should exert a dominant control on landscape form and erosion rate. However, clear demonstrations of the dominance of lithology are rare, and this effect might be overprinted by climatic and tectonic signals that are difficult to disentangle. We take advantage of a unique data set that combines X Y and Z, to do just that. A XXX analysis demonstrates that erodibility exerts the primary control on topography, and its signature is YYYY. We are also able to observe second-order contributions to topography from glaciations and uplift rates, using ZZZ.


There are numerous other places in the main text where language could be cleaned up and made more correct. The first sentence in the main text, for example, starts out "The topographies of the world’s mountains..."
The text could stand to be edited from a fresh perspective, with these ideas in mind.