This paper investigates the relation between upstream and downstream turbulence across interplanetary shocks in the solar wind nearer to the sun ased on solar orbiter observations. There is a wealth of investigations of such a relation substantially farther away from the sun around 1 AU or farther out, while the present paper deals with a region closer to the source region of both interplanetary shocks and also turbulence inside of 0.5 AU a region attributed to a highly dynamic original state of the solar wind though not yet the real source region which is expected to be farther inward inside of the 0.3 AU noch covered by the present observations.

This work in order to inverstigate the relations between intrplanetary travelling shocks and solar wind turbulence ingeneral i.e. its magnetic and non-magnetic  components, defines three (normalized) parameters to characterize these relations. These are the ordinary and magnetic cross helicities and residual energy which the authors investigate in the regions upstream and downstream of a large number of observed shocks in order to obtain statistically based general properties of the effect of shocks on turbulence or vice versa turbulence on shocks, but the emphasis is on the former effect assuming that the shocks are violently generated and affect the turbulence wwhile the turbulent effect on the shock properties would be a smaller effect. This may be true even in the regions closer to the sun under investigation as turbulence in the fast streaming solar wind far away from boundaries (assuming the shock front themselves do for the fast stream not represent tangential boundaries which seems to be the case) is of substantially smaller amplitude than the shock pulse in both the fuid and magnetic components.

There is a large amount of standard calculations in determining the above mentioned parameters. Interestng concerning magnetic effects is the distinction between small-scale flux ropes and alfvenic fluctutions, the latter practically transverse magnetic turbulence fluctuations while the former including everything else. Usually flux ropes in space physics are reserved for three-dimensional or localized reconnection events while here the simply account for non-alfvenic magnetic turbulence whether cause in any way by turbulnece which in turbulence may indeed be the case on wide scales related to local reconnection effects in small-scale current sheets which have, in teh turbulence in the magnetosheeth been identified and have also been proposed as the basic dissipation mechanism of plasma turbulence. So those flux ropeds, concernong turbulence could indeed be related to the dissipation range of turbulence which in collisionless plasma is far above the molecular level somewhere around the ion and electron inertial lengths. Large flux ropes would then contribute to dissipation at the ion scale narrow one to the ultimate dissipation at the electron scale. It is not entirely clear whether the present inestigation can indeed resolve that scale. However this is of lesser importance as the interest of the authors is not in those dissipation effect than rather in the relation between turbuence and shocks.

The results of thee investigations are quite complex and given in a lage number of instructive figures underr the prevalent conditions of the used data sets. As expected, around the shock the energy in the turbulent fluctuations is determined by the magnetic fluctuations with the shock front forming a bundary to the turublence. Clearly alfvenic turbulence prpagating parallel/antiparallel to the shock is capable of passing across the shock. It is , however, also cler that an inestigation of this statistical kind does not provide information about the physical mechanisms of turbulence generation inside the shock.

Altogether this paper provides a rather interesting background information for the average properties of the three turbulence parameters defined in the beginning upstream of, downstream, and at a strong shock front travelling in the magnetized solar wind outward from the sun, In the domain investigated it seems that the shocks are strong enough to confine much of the turbulence to downstream. This is known to change farther downstream around and beyond 1 au indicatin that on the way fartherdownstream the turbulence manages to pass across the sshock during and with the flow.

In my opinion there is not much to say neither ttto the method nor to the statistical results which are interesting in themselves. It to some extent round up our icture of turbulence in  the solar wind this ttime in presence of sshocks nearer to the sun.

My tendency is to accept the paper almost in its present form for publicationj saving myself from artificially criticizing anything on style or where the presentation could be made clearer. For background papers of this kind “improvements“ as someone would call it, make little sense. They serve the community by presenting the required information.

The study analyzes how interplanetary fast-forward shocks influence turbulence parameters using data from Wind (1 AU) and Solar Orbiter (0.3–0.5 AU). It reproduces the previously known features of upstream solar wind turbulence (predominantly outward imbalance, magnetic energy dominance) and investigates the changes in these parameters with respect to shock characteristics such as velocity jump and plasma beta. Furthermore, the authors have found that the occurrence rate of Alfvénic fluctuations decreases downstream, while the occurrence rate of small-scale flux ropes increases. The results are consistent across distances and contribute to understanding turbulence and particle acceleration in collisionless shocks, as well as theories of fluctuation transmission across a shock front.

The paper reads very well and contains only a small number of inaccuracies/typos, given its length and the number of figures. Below, I list a few minor comments that should enhance the overall high quality of the manuscript.

Minor Comments

Lines 61-64:

I believe this sentence should be phrased more clearly. While the residual energy increases with heliocentric distance, the imbalance of the inertial range cross-helicity decreases—i.e., it approaches zero with increasing heliocentric distance. See, for example, Figure 63 in Bruno and Carbone (2013).

Line 236:

Upon closer inspection of Figure 4, it appears that the running median differs for r_g, beta_u, etc. For example, for r_g, the black and grey curves should end between the 20th and 21st data points. However, there are only four points to the right of the curve’s endings, which suggests that the running median is calculated over eight points. For beta_u, there appear to be approximately 16 points, suggesting that the median is calculated over ~32 points. Could the authors comment on this or improve the figures?

If a mean is calculated over the x-values while the median is applied to the y-values, I suggest changing the mean to a median for consistency. I believe the running median should remain consistent across all figures (e.g., using 40 points throughout). I completely agree with employing medians in this study, as they are less susceptible to outliers. In any case, I believe that these suggested improvements will not alter the study's conclusions but will enhance the consistency of calculations and the readability of the figures.

Regarding the plots containing upstream plasma beta (histograms and running medians), the authors could consider using a logarithmic scale instead of a linear scale, as it provides a more natural representation (see, for example, Figure 1 in Chen et al. 2014, GRL, 10.1002/2014GL062009). This could improve the readability of the plots.

Lines 450-452:

I suggest including Pitna et al. 2023 (JPCS, 10.1088/1742-6596/2544/1/012009) in the discussion. They modeled upstream fluctuations as 2D turbulence (a specific set of flux ropes). Since flux rope modes, by definition, exhibit zero velocity fluctuations, an enhancement of magnetic field fluctuations within a flux rope naturally leads to a decrease in residual energy—assuming that upstream turbulence consists of a dominant 2D turbulence component and a minor slab population. The observations reported here align well with their findings.

Typos and Inaccuracies

Table 1: Fourth row: Correct the formatting of “… mean(‘<> …”

Sentence in Lines 257-258: Please reformulate for clarity.

Figure 7: Verify the accuracy of the embedded symbols “<” and “>” in the two bottom rows.

Lines 358, 370 and other instances: Change “FR” to “SFR” where appropriate.

Line 401: I appreciate the approach of rectifying the cross-helicity as described in Section 2.3, where the authors assert the average Parker IMF angles of 315° and 135°. However, these angles should be quite different at distances around 0.3 AU. The authors seem to be aware of this, as the correct definition of "away" and "toward" sectors is displayed in the fourth panel of Figure 11. I suggest adjusting the angles mentioned in the text accordingly.

In conclusion, I believe this large statistical study is both novel and insightful. The statistics of identified AFs and SFRs provide a good direction for future research. A well-executed statistical study can help identify specific directions where theoretical analysis should be conducted. While the statistical sample is substantial, it is not yet large enough to fully investigate the influence of a single turbulent or shock parameter. However, this study offers valuable insights into this complex problem.