Thank you for your submission of this work. I have considered excellent and thorough reviews given by the two anonymous reviewers. It seems that most of the comments were addressed and incorporated into the manuscript.

I noticed that there were still no rock standards published along with the U-Th data even though this was requested by reviewer #2 and there is an uncited reference listed:
Prytulak, J. et al. (2008). An inter-laboratory assessment of the thorium isotopic composition of synthetic and rock reference materials. Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research, 32, 65–91.
Perhaps this was an omission.

Figure caption 1: dureation should be "duration" and vetical should be "vertical"
In fact, this whole sentence: "i.e. between Y axis and this dashed vetical line. (lower panels: d, e and f) the co-evolution of these ratios presented above." is not proper English. Please rephrase the punctuation and/or text to make it make more sense.
Also in the Fig 1 caption: "In order to make sense of the complexity of the different possible patterns in the framework of the comminution model incorporating weathering (see section 2.3.1. Different cases are plotted, corresponding to different f values, and different weathering intensities (see legend)." This is not a sentence and doesn't make sense. Please revise.

There are some formatting issues with the references in the document.

Other than these easy adjustments and additions, the manuscript will be ready to publish.

Thank you for making the corrections and publishing in ESurf! I enjoyed reading your study and look forward to publication.

Dear authors,

I have now read your revised manuscript, together with the reviewer comments, your replies, and the final AE report; considering these together, I am pleased to confirm acceptance of this paper. As I think the discussion with Reviewer #2 highlights, there are clearly a number of details still to be resolved in applying U-series tools to quantifying sediment transfer, both in terms of sample preparation and data interpretation. But I expect that your study will add important new insight. Thanks for choosing Esurf for this work, and I look forward to seeing the final paper published.

You will be asked to upload a final version of your manuscript prior to typesetting and review of the proofs. Before you upload that version, please consult the minor editing comments I noted below during my reading. Making these corrections at this stage will simplify the copy editing and proof-reading process.

Also, I have two general comments you may want to consider before uploading your final manuscript files:

Firstly, Reviewer #2 asked whether prior versions of the 234U/238U comminution model have really not included a weathering term. I had the same question, and I could not see where you directly addressed this in your reply document. Even if the comminution age models in the DePaolo et al. and Lee at al. papers did not include a weathering term, recognizing the effects of U leaching on 234U/238U is not altogether new, having been identified for example by Andersen et al., 2013, Chemical Geology. In my opinion it would be worth citing this paper and softening the language slightly where your current wording might imply that the leaching of U has not been understood previously as an important control on 234U/238U.

Secondly, you state in the paper that “the recycling time and weathering coefficients are considered
the same between the different samples” (Section 2.3.5) and that “weathering intensity and the predepositional history duration are the same for all samples” (Section 5). I found these sentences confusing because I first thought you were equating weathering intensity and recycling time, but what you really mean is that you assume all of your samples have the same values for weathering coefficients, and that the samples also have the same values for recycling time. I suggest rewording to say something along the lines of, “all samples are assumed to share the same weathering intensity as well as the same prepositional history duration.”

Here are the minor editing comments:

p2, line 21 - needs a date for the Ebelman reference
p3, line 7 - soils AND sediments
p3, line 23 - age, not ages
p5, line 19 - comma not semicolon after deep
p6, lines 8-9 - needs units for 10Be concentration (presumably 10^5 at/g)
p6, lines 12-13 - presumably shielding was <0.000001, not greater than 0.999999
p7, line 8 - disequilibria were, not was
p7, line 8 - determine THE time constant
p7, line 9 - suggest rewording to say Refer to, not We refer to
p7, line 25 - determines, not determine
p8, line 22 - fix format of the citation (replace and with a semicolon)
p9, line 5 - coefficients, not coefficient
p10, line 12 - hydrochloride is missing final e
p12, line 24 - samples, not sample
p12, line 24 - In fact, not in facts
p12, line 26 - from one cycle to another, not from a cycle to another
p13, line 2 - semicolon not comma
p13, line 4 - suggest removing Moreover at start of this sentence since it is used again at the start of the next sentence
p14, line 15 - profiles ages results is not correct; either profile age results or age results from profiles
p15, line 19 - was observed, not were observed
p18, line 2 - remove extra ‘ after theory
p19, lines 11-12 - remove extra () inside the citation, and check this isn’t a problem for citations elsewhere in the manuscript
p20, line 1 - moraine, not moraines
Heading for Section 4.2 - remove comma after interactions
p20, line 8 - suggest replacing this residence time with the residence time (or the calculated residence time)
p20, line 20 - lake, not lakes
p21, line 6 - A weathering rate
p21, line 10 - remove extra () around date in citation
p21, line 14 - an erosional forcing would be better here than the erosional forcing
p22, line 2 - age, not ages
p23, line 3 - whether, not wether
Fig 2 caption - Lisiecki AND Raymo (2205)
Fig 3 caption - we, not We
Fig 3 caption - varies, not vary
Fig 6 caption - one Monte Carlo solution would be better than one solution to the Monte Carlo
Fig 6 caption - mobility OF 234U vs. 238U
Table 2 - define bold values?
Table 3 - use superscript in units for specific surface area

Please try to make these final corrections at your discretion and upload your final manuscript version as soon as possible, to expedite publication.

And thanks again for submitting your work to Esurf.