Sorry it took so long to obtain two reviews for this paper. As you have seen the reviews were very different, which has made it difficult to make a decision on the paper. I am quite concerned that both reviewers said the paper contains nothing new, which may suggest that it would be more suited to a different journal. However, I'm willing to consider the opinion of reviewer 1 on the revised manuscript and your response to their earlier comments. Please could you make the changes and submit your revised manuscript for further review. Some additional comments from me:

I agree with the reviewer that it is not entirely clear what is plotted in Figure 6. Please could you make the legend on the plot and the caption clearer, and make sure that you explain unambiguously where the model results came from? I think "ModelDayglow" is the 391.4 nm emission output from the AURIC model, and "w_sunlitaurora" is the 391.4 nm emission output from the AURIC model added to the output from the B3C model? You refer to the green line and red line data both in the paper and in your response to the reviewer. Would it help to include those data on the plot, or in a new plot?

Line 64 - the reviewer is referring to the first word of the sub-section title - "Poleward" is missing an "e".

Please ensure you follow the journal guidelines on mathematical notation and terminology (see https://www.annales-geophysicae.net/submission.html), in particular the formatting of dates and units.

As you can see from the review, the reviewer has found that the presentation of the manuscript needs to be improved to make the information given more clear and to explain the relevance of the work. Please make the changes required to address their concerns before further review by myself as editor.

Thank you for submitting the updated version of your manuscript. I think there are still a few things (listed below) that need addressing before the paper can be published, so I am returning it for minor corrections with further review by myself as editor.

Line numbers here refer to the version of the manuscript with tracked changes shown.

Line 120: 428.7 should be 427.8.

There is still a date with an ordinal suffix, on line 139 ("13th"). Please convert this to a date (with month and year) both to avoid ambiguity and to follow the journal guidelines.

Line 176: I assume "comprehensible" should be "comprehensive".

Figure 6 caption: Please add "(dashed line)" and "(blue line)" into the caption somewhere to make things easier for the reader and to avoid ambiguity.

Figure 6: Please mark on the start and end times of the "plateau", e.g. with shading, vertical lines, or arrows, as requested by the reviewer. This plateau is unclear to the reviewer, so is likely to also be unclear to other readers.

Line 206, sentence starting "However": I suggest rewriting this sentence to make it easier to read. Perhaps this is an accurate rewrite: "However, during this period the AURIC/B3C modelling shows that the resonance scattering component of the 391.4 nm emission vastly exceeds the direct auroral emission component, and is enhanced due to the increased production of N2+ ions by the auroral precipitation."

Line 216, sentence starting "The data": I'm sorry but I don't understand what point you are trying to make with this sentence, and I don't think the reviewer did either. Are you saying the model predicts that emission from auroral precipitation should be observed from 450s onwards? If so, what point does the "therefore" follow from?

Line 269: "is closely followed by" - to me this reads as if there is a lag between the correlation coefficients, but I don't think that's what you mean. Probably "closely follows" is better.

Thank you for updating the manuscript, I think the changed sentences are now much clearer.