The authors thank the reviewer 1 for careful reading of the manuscript and helpful comments to improve it. Below are out point-by-point answers to the suggestions.

1. When comparing the spectra of continuum and the background in Figure 4, how about including a comparison with the spectrum of sunlit aurora as well? While Figures 1A and 12C clearly illustrate the visual color differences between continuum and sunlit aurora, a more precise comparison using spectra could help to understand their differences.

This is a good idea that has been discussed. We want to add a spectrum that is taken from the same image/spectrogram as our continuum and background sky spectra to avoid any changes in the sky or auroral conditions, and this seemed most feasible to do for the event in Figure 12, because the sunlit aurora structures are narrower and fainter in the event in Figure 4. We have therefore added a sunlit spectrum to Figure 12B, and its corresponding location to Figure 12A, just north of the continuum. Compared to the continuum spectrum the sunlit spectrum shows much less background and equally strong red emission. Compared to the background sky spectrum the sunlit one shows more enhanced the blue and also green emission lines. The enhanced blue component within the dayside red aurora is the signature of the sunlit conditions.

2. To make the comparison between Figures 1A and 1B clearer, could you add numerical labels corresponding to the scan angles in Figure 1B onto the slit region (white rectangle) in the all-sky image (Figure 1A)?

Approximate spectrograph pixel values of 40, 80, 120 and 160 have been added into Figure 1A for reference.

3. Although the direction is explained in the caption of Figure 1A, it would be helpful to indicate "N," "S," "E," and "W" directly in Figure 1A to make it visually clearer.

Small arrows indicating the direction to north and east has been added onto Figure 1A to support the caption text.

4. I understand that Figure 1B is not calibrated for sensitivity, but adding a color bar might still be helpful for readers to understand the scale.

Figure 1B is indeed showing uncalibrated intensity, so it is just counts, similar to the values on Y axis of Figure 4 and 12B. We have added the colour bar to Figures 1B and 12A, and also normalised the count values in all figures of spectrograph data, so that they just show the relative brightness enhancement. This has been clarified in the figure captions and axis labels have been added to support the figure caption texts.

5. Please add a label to the vertical axis of Figure 4.

Sure, an axis label has been added. That is now “Normalised brightness”.

6. The time labels in Figures 8C and 8F are too small to read. Could you enlarge them?

Absolutely. Figure 8C and 8F time and panel labels have been enlarged significantly.

7. Please add a label to the vertical axis of Figure 12B.

An axis label has been added. That is now “Normalised brightness”.

We thank reviewer 2 for helpful suggestions to improve the manuscript. The revised version of the manuscript includes implementation of all comments.

Figures 9 and 10: Please add error bars to both panels.

The error bars are included in the revised version of the manuscript, where then, for clarity, we only include two different heights for ESR data. These are the top and bottom heights from the same range as before, to show the magnitude of the vertical variability.

Figure 15: The phenomenon described is simply not visible in the figure. If it is very faint, I suggest adding arrows to aid the reader.

Good point, thank you. This is done.

Figure 17: A non-expert reader may easily become confused with the normal aurora present. Please add an arrow to point out the continuum event.

Indeed. The region of interest has been marked in the revised version of the manuscript.