Dear authors,

I would like to thank you for the revision of your manuscript. The revised version has now been seen by two reviewers, who suggest further revisions that are mainly minor in character. One important point that is raised by both reviewers, to varying degree, concerns the discussion. I share the implied suggestion that a careful evaluation of actual results presented versus more speculative or conceptual theory is warranted. I welcome speculation as it can point out future research directions, but it should be very clear which parts are the more speculative sections and that alternative hypotheses or disagreements (may) exist. I hope the two reports will give you useful handles for the discussion section. I would also be interested in your opinion on whether variations in thrusting regime (areas more dominated by vertical versus horizontal transport) are not possible just by nature of the thrusting process, which is often not continuous, both in space and time. I agree foreland basins are an archive of surface, crustal, and sub-crustal processes, but that does not mean that a deep process (slab dynamics) necessarily needs to be invoked to explain discontinuous thrusting behaviour.

I have indicated a major revision, because i would like to evaluate the revised manuscript and this is the only way the system allows this. But please know that i would in principle consider the required changes as minor.

I am of course available to answer any questions you may have on the suggested revisions. Thank you again for your work on the manuscript.

With best wishes,
Susanne Buiter

Dear authors,

Thank you for the new revision of your manuscript. There has been a delay as not all of the author responses were uploaded to the system and i am currently again lacking part of the response. However, i do not want to delay the process further and am therefore sending you my recommendation now.

As you will see, i am asking for another revision. I am well aware that there are different opinions regarding the proposed transition from vertical to horizontal tectonics. That is in itself not the issue, as discussion brings science forward. However, we do need to take care to clearly separate new findings from review and proposals.

I am asking for the following revisions:

1. Please carefully consider and clarify terminology:

1a. The terms uplift and exhumation are not synonyms (for example, line 25 on page 2 and line 20 on page 13). Rock uplift only implies rock exhumation when there is removal of the overburden. Please ensure that ‘exhumation’ is in each case the correct term and clarify whether ‘uplift’ is rock uplift or surface uplift. Some additional specific cases:
- Line 23, page 13: uplift or exhumation?
- Line 24, page 13: is ‘late Miocene en-bloc exhumation’ exhumation or uplift?
- Line 23, page 15: uplift or exhumation?

1b. Vertical displacements do not need to be buoyancy driven. Especially in introduction, background and results sections, interpretations should be separated from results and definitions. Therefore, please remove ‘but is overridden by a buoyancy driven component’ on line 30 on page 2 and ‘buoyancy-driven’ on line 13, page 3; line 23, page 13; lines 5 and 23, page 15, as well as line 19, page 18.

2. Is section 4.2 a result in the sense that this describes a new litho-tectonic architecture? If so, then the placement in the results section is fine. I would then suggest adding a specific statement that this is new mapping and switch section 4.2 (which describes the structural setting) with 4.1. If instead this section presents known materials, then please make this part of section 2 and give appropriate references. Related to this, are the map and cross-sections in Figure 3 newly made for this study? If so, please clarify. If not, or in addition, please state which underlying maps or sections have been used as basis.

3. Section 5.2.1 introduces a long-wavelength scale. The term wavelength implies a periodicity and a scale, which in this case are spatial. Please describe and motivate the approximate spatial scale in kilometres over which the feature repeats itself.

4. The new, and also highlighted by the reviewers as of high interest, contribution of the manuscript are the thermochronological data. What i miss is a discussion of the data, their uncertainties, and especially, how the new data help the inferences of section 5. I suggest therefore starting section 5 with a discussion of the thermochronological data.

5. Section 5 has much of a review character and can be shortened substantially.

6. Minor textual issues:
-/ Rephrase unclear text on line 5, page 3 (‘when the not to only weakly thinned part’)
-/ What is en-bloc exhumation (line 24, page 13 and lines 7 and 9, page 2) and en-bloc thrusting (line 23, page 12)?
-/ What is break-back thrusting (line 8, page 14)?

With best wishes,
Susanne Buiter

Dear Samuel Mock and co-authors,

Many thanks for the revisions of your manuscript. I know it has been a long process, but i feel that the constructive discussions with the reviewers have benefitted the manuscript. I hope of course you would share this. As i wrote earlier, i welcome debate and discussions, such as we had in this case on the transition from vertical to horizontal tectonics, as these help us sharpen our thoughts and should bring science forward. I am happy to recommend publication of your manuscript.

With best wishes,
Susanne Buiter

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

Many thanks for choosing Solid Earth as a platform for publishing your research.

Sincerely,
Federico