Hello Dr Beaudoin,
I have now had a chance to read the reviewer criticisms of your original submission and your revised version. The reviews of your original manuscript were generally positive. The first reviewer recommended publication after only technical corrections. The second recommended publication following major revisions, although those revisions seemed to be mainly focused on presentation quality for both grammar and organization rather than any perceived scientific issue. Reading your revised version and your response to the reviewer comments, I feel that significant progress was made such that the publication of your manuscript should proceed following minor revisions. I request that you revise your manuscript again, taking into account the comments below. Please note that this will likely be the final version of the manuscript, and you may not be able to make additional changes after this point.

I look forward to seeing a revised version of this manuscript, and thank you for considering this special issue for your work. I enjoyed reading this paper and we will be happy to have it contribute to the volume.

Best,
Randy Williams

General comments:
The grammar and clarity of the manuscript have been significantly improved from the original version. Thank you for so diligently addressing the reviewers' comments in that area. There remain a few issues, however, and I will ask that you again have a look through the manuscript with an eye to further improving grammatical issues. I have highlighted many of these issues below, but it is possible that I have missed some along the way. On the note of text clarity, I feel that the use of acronyms in this manuscript is a bit excessive and makes for difficult reading. In my opinion one can only reasonably expect a reader to remember 2-3 new acronyms in a paper. In many instances I had to flip back through the text to recall the definition of an acronym, which is of course not ideal. I suggest that you conduct a judicious review of the manuscript eliminating acronyms that are not necessary or perhaps are rarely used.

Line referenced comments:
35-36: Please add some specificity to what is meant by “squeegee” type migration.

44: Please pluralize “prospect(s)” and “area(s)”.

46: Suggest “temporal and spatial…” for grammatical consistency.

47: Seems like they are as often controlled directly by tectonic events rather than those that occurred in the past. Suggest “Fluid migration and accumulation events are strongly controlled by tectonic action” or similar.

51: “large-scale regional” is redundant. Please simplify.

54-60: This is a bit cumbersome as a semicolon list. Please revise for clarity.

62-63: I am not sure the qualifier “in relation with past tectonic events” is needed here.

69: “A variety of fluid system evolution arises”? This is not grammatically correct and I am not sure exactly what it is trying to convey?

70: Suggest changing “witness” to “record” here and throughout the manuscript.

72: “Record” should be “record(s)".

75: Delete “levels”.

86: Delete “the”.

96: Pluralize networks.

101: Suggest: “...belt formed during the convergence…”.

171-173: The parenthetical here is extremely long and difficult to understand. Please break this out into sentences for clarity.

173-174: “Chronology” is inferred, not observed. Suggest “cross-cutting” relationships or similar.

178: Please expand on “statistically meaningful”.

180-181: Needs a citation.

191: What exactly is meant by “statistically most representative”.

202: “Smoothing” perhaps?

222: This seems like a significant assumption. Is this returned to in the discussion? What manner of error would result if the horizontal stresses were NOT isotropic?

255: On point (2), suggesting citing Passchier and Trouw or perhaps some of Paul Bons' work for these terms.

358: Needs clarification. Strikes perpendicular to the strike of local strata?

380: Unclear. Revise for clarity.

447: Not sure the exact equation needs to be given here. Just the citation will be fine.

487: Not sure where statistics come into this statement?

541: “The sedimentary record…” In what way does the sedimentary record constrain this, specifically?

554: Fix double parentheses please.

561-562: Too many acronyms. Per earlier comment, please try to reduce the number of these.

571-572: I think this oversimplifies the situation. There are fluid volumes, temperatures, timescales, and fractionation factors that are required to assess if pore-fluids were in equilibrium with the surrounding rock.

578-580: Despite my comment above about the d18O data specifically, the overall conclusion of this discussion seems quite reasonable.

585-586: Again, this to me is oversimplified. Please see work by Banner and Hanson (1990, Geochimica et cosmochemica acta) for an example of what I am referring to.

589-590: In reference to the comment above, why speculate on the comparison between vein and host-rock d18O when you have actually calculated fluid d18O? The latter is much more compelling.

592-607: Suggest presenting data types in the same order as the paragraphs above for consistency. Also suggest maintaining the same level of detail (i.e. the Sr isotope compositions are not specified here at all and they should be).

618: I do not recall specific mention of meteoric fluids? It seems like the range of d18O-fluid documented was far too isotopically heavy to be consistent with a meteoric source? Please clarify.

623: Squeegee type migration. I think I get it, but I feel the text could be improved by just stating mechanistically what is meant here. In particular, I think non-native english speakers will have difficulty with this reference.

652-653: On the low permeability nature of damage zones in evaporite. I`m not sure this is known exactly. Please cite, or otherwise change the wording of this sentence to be more speculatory on the nature of permeability in evaporite damage zones.

656-657: Another point arguing against Triassic evaporite involvement is that those lithologies tend to be very rich in Sr. If there were significant involvement, you would certainly expect to see those more radiogenic signatures present in your vein Sr isotope data. Whether or not you mention this is up to you, I only point it out as a potential location for solidifying the presented argument.

682-686: Suggest breaking this out of list form and into sentence form for clarity.

695: Pluralize “time”.

Figures:
Figure 1: Much of the text of this figure is too small to be read at the current resolution.

Figure 2: a) Suggest adding the line depiction of fracture orientation for all of the labeled fractures. C and D) The red tick marks are quite hard to see against the backdrop. Perhaps thicker and maybe change to yellow?

Figure 3: Text in many of the scale bars is too small to read at this resolution.

Figure 4: Suggest adding bedding as a plane (rather than pole to plane) in each. Also suggest adding fold axial planes where relevant.

Figure 6: Suggest increasing the size of the plotted symbols throughout.

Thank you for making the requested minor revisions. I think this manuscript is now ready for publication.