We thank the referee for many useful comments (including suggestions and questions) on the material presented in the manuscript.  Below are our item-by-item responses to the referee's comments.

As suggested by the referee, we are going to emphasize the mention of new findings from this investigation in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript.

In the revision, we are going to enhance the resolution of figure labels that appear blurred in the preprint.

As part of the revision, we are going to include some additional details regarding the TEC calculation, including fundamental equations and related references.  Similarly, we are also going to include a more detailed description on the methodology surrounding the keograms.

More specifically regarding Figures 2, we are going to enhance the resolution of the figure labels which presently appear blurred.  For Figures 12-15 which contain multiple subpanels (in rows and columns), we are going to add additional labeling with roman numerals (i-iv) in addition to the letters (a, b, c) for ease of identification.

Based on the suggested technical corrections by the referee, we are making the following changes to the manuscript.

The sentence in Line 10 will be modified in order to improve clarity.

In Line 18, we will change “some” into “of some”

In Line 36, we will change “solar local time” into “local solar time”

The sentence in Lines 45-48 will be modified in order to make it simpler and easier to understand by the readers.

We will remove the word “relatively” in Line 73 of the manuscript.

We will modify the format of geographic coordinates used throughout the manuscript.

We will restructure the sentence in Line 128 to make it clearer and more coherent.

In Lines 128-130 of the manuscript, we are modifying the sentence based on the suggestion given by the referee.

We will restructure the sentence in Lines 133-134 in order to improve its clarity. 

We will rewrite the sentence in Lines 144-145 following the given suggestion.

We will rephrase the sentence in Lines 188-190 based on the suggested sentence structure.

We will modify the sentence in Lines 195-196 following the suggested wording.

In Lines 235 and 242, we will modify the vocabulary/wording of “climb” into “ascent”

We will change the phrase “keogram plot” into “keogram”

We will rephrase the sentence in Line 293 following the given suggestion.

We will rephrase the sentence in Lines 303-304 in order to make it simpler and easier to understand by the readers.

We will modify the sentence in Lines 342-343 following the given suggestion.

We will rephrase Line 370 following the suggestion.

We will modify Lines 404 and 417 following the suggestion in order to make them more compact.

In Lines 408-409, we will add “e.g.” based on the suggestion.

Regarding the overshoot phenomenon during recovery (Lines 438-440), a more detailed description and chain of logic are as follows.  In a past research work reported by Aa et al. (2020) <https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028296> on the same solar eclipse event, there was an outward shift of the EIA crest during the eclipse based on TEC and satellite measurement data.  This outward shift was explained in terms of enhanced eastward polarization electric field during the eclipse which strengthened the equatorial fountain, making the fountain flow landed over the greater |MLAT| locations.  In the analysis of our processed TEC data, we confirmed that the maximum TEC in the EIA zone during the eclipse was located farther away from the geomagnetic equator line, compared to pre-eclipse.  Further, we also found that several hours after the eclipse had ended, the EIA crest configuration was back to normal, just like EIA configuration on regular days.  This is consistent with the fountain returning to normal strength as the enhanced polarization electric field diminished.  Thus, we conclude that the calming of the fountain effect must have acted as a restoring process to reverse the outward shift of the EIA crest from earlier stage, which would mean an inward shift of the EIA crest as part of the recovery toward the end of the eclipse.  In the manuscript revision, we are expanding the discussion with this additional set of information in order to fill the gap in the overall chain of logic and analysis.

We will modify Line 469 in the manuscript following the suggestion.

We thank the referee for providing many useful suggestions and questions.  Below are our item-by-item responses to the referee’s comments.

In the TEC calculation, the cutoff for the elevation angle was 20 degrees.  In the revised manuscript, we are adding this additional information.

The typographical error in Line 192 will be fixed (i.e. “eclipse”) in the revised manuscript.

Regarding the baseline curves in Figures 5-7, we are going to follow the suggestions given by the referee.  In the revised manuscript, we will be using the average values from ionosonde observations to form the baseline curves.  The performance of IRI model over the Southeast Asian region, more specifically over the Indonesian region, turned out to be less than optimal.  More detailed quantification on the IRI model performance over this geographic region may also be investigated further in future research.

Following the suggestion, here (in Line 340) we will skip mentioning the AGW due to limited information on wave parameters.

The main advantage of the Laplacian operator for capturing inhomogeneity in the form of sharp discontinuity in 2-D data is its low computational cost.  In addition, the Laplacian operator has the same properties in each direction (i.e. isotropic), which simplifies the interpretation of results.  Unfortunately, the edge direction is unavailable, which is its disadvantage.  Nevertheless, edge direction is not very important in our situation, and our analysis was not impacted.  In the revised manuscript, we are going to include more detailed explanation and foundational references regarding the use of Laplacian technique.

In the revised manuscript, we will be including some additional discussion of the present results in relation to results that had been obtained over the South American sector.

Regarding the “shallow TEC valley” (Line 482 of the manuscript), at this stage we do not know the precise physical mechanism that may have caused the phenomena for certain.  What we have done was to eliminate as much as possible various scenarios involving instrumental artefact and geographical distribution of ground-based observing stations, which could conceivably lead to such a “shallow TEC valley”.  One scenario under consideration was a systematic/correlated shift in the TEC bias for a group of nearby receiver stations.  However, each receiver device is operating independently (even when their spatial distances are quite close), which makes it unlikely for their hardware biases to be linked electronically.  Another scenario under consideration was slant factors that may be quite extreme (due to low elevation angles) for IPPs that are located over ocean region unpopulated by receiver stations.  However, it turned out that this latter scenario predicts that the “shallow TEC valley” would instead have happened over the ocean region (opposite to the observed fact that the “shallow TEC valley” actually occurred over land mass region populated with receiver stations).  Hence, we can rule out this possibility as well.  Therefore, the exact physical mechanism for the occurrence of this “shallow TEC valley” is still an open scientific question for the community.  Nevertheless, some possible instrumental effects have been ruled out in our considerations.