Dear Felix and coauthors,

Thanks for the detailed reply to fairly detailed reviews, I think your manuscript benefited from both.

There is one more aspect which I think should be clearer throughout the paper, and that is the distinction between the instantaneous and the finite strain ellipsoid. A grain, changing its shape by dissolution at the highest principal normal stress side (sigma1, related to the contracting instantaneous stretching axis) and precipitation at the lowest principal stress side (sigma 3, related to the extending instantaneous stretching axis) will attain a shape which is generally not related to the finite strain ellipsoid.

There are many good reasons to separate the instantaneous from finite strains when it comes to interpreting rock fabrics, i.e. Schmid et al 1987 (grain shapes track strain as long as only glide takes place and loose strain relation as soon as dynamic recrystallization takes over), Kilian & Heilbronner, 2017 (recrystallized grains have long axes parallel to the ISA while stretched grains track finite grain) or, probably most relevant here Marti et al 2018 (https://doi.org/10.5194/se-9-985-2018), Fig 13 where rims formed by dissolution precipitation become more monoclinic with total strain and clearly deviate from both, ISA and finite stretching direction.

In that sense, could you please re-address points 21, 30 and 46 of of Ruediger's review.

I look forward to receiving the final version of the paper, and hopefully we can accept this before Christmas.

Best wishes,
Florian

Dear Felix and coauthors,

Thanks for these final modifications. From my point of view this is a very fine manuscript now, and I look forward to seeing it published in SE.

Best wishes,
Florian

Dear Authors,
based on the TE's report and the overall assessment of the review process, I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in Solid Earth.

many thanks for choosing Solid Earth.

sincerely,

federico rossetti