|Dear Jérémie & Co-Authors,|
Thanks very much for considering my comments on the previous version of your manuscript. I'm happy with your responses, and the revised manuscript.
And I can't remember if I explicitly said so before, but I really like the idea of bringing some "other" information, especially "geological", and especially, especially geological information derived from 3D geological modelling, into constrained or guided or whatever geophysical inversions. This is genuinely heading towards a truly integrated *modelling* of geo data.
I do have a couple of remaining comments, which are not important ...
I appreciate the new, revised model with the ghost unit B (and nicely relieved that the geophysics is doing better than I'd thought!). What happens for this example, though, if the new zone of uncertainty that you introduced in this particular example is the only zone of uncertainty, and that the one in the original version of the example weren't there, i.e., not introduce an extra zone (which the inversion can ignore), but have the one zone in the incorrect place? (I'm attaching a pdf file of the page of the supplement with the relevant figures, and I've tried to annotate the image of W_H indicating which two zones I'm talking about.) Will the gravity inversion happily put the density transition where the new, one, incorrectly located zone is??? And if so, how badly distorted is the rest of the model? Maybe it's distorted enough that it's not geologically believable?
Views of the model in Figures 7 & 8: Yes, the addition of the plan views of the regions where the interesting things are definitely helps. The perspective views of the models in these figures are important and useful to see and impressive. Hopefully they can be made as large as possible in the final copy of this paper (and not, e.g., squeezed into a column that is the width of half a page).