I am uploading an annottated MS with just a few issues concerning the order in which the authors cite figures, or the lack of coherence regarging the random use of upper/lower case for certain names. Nothing important, but worth editing at this stage. Otherwise, the authors have fulfilled most of the reviewers questions and have come up with a concise, complete and very interesting work about the evolution of the Ordenes Complex

Dear Authors,

After having examined the the reviewers's comments, the response to reviewers' letter and the revised manuscript, I have some additional remarks on this revised version that need further consideration before the acceptance of the manuscript.

(i) It is necessary to better introduce the geological problem and significance of the Sobrado unit in the regional context;

(ii) It is necessary to document the significance of the studied samples and their representativeness at the regional scale. Which the criteria for sample selection?

(iii) It is compulsory to link the dated accessory minerals to the microtextural fabrics of the studied samples. This request was already posed by Rev#2, acknowledged in the Author's response letter but not accomplished in the revised version. Providing a better assessment of the microtextural fabrics and the reaction textures involving the main and the accessory mineral phases would add strength to the proposed reconstruction (despite feasible). This is in particular relevant for the growth stages of the Ti-phases (Rt, Ilm, Ttn) and monazite. Which the evidence for monazite and titanite re-crystallisation? Why excluding a syn-tectonic growth?

(iv) Data are mixed with inferences and this should be avoided.


The above points are detailed in the attached edited pdf file.


I am therefore returning the manuscript with a request of minor to moderate revision.


Sincerely,

Federico Rossetti

Dear Authors,
many thanks for this further revision.

The manuscript is certainly improved, but further (minor) work is needed to render the manuscript suitable for final publication. In particular: I would propose (i) to reduce the number of micrographs shown in Figs. 3 and 4, since some of them are either redundant or not relevant (see the comments on the Figures). On this regard, I would also suggest to remove infos regarding the ductile deformation in garnet and titanite (including shear senses), since not fully pertinent with the scientific rationale of the study (see the commented pdf file); and (ii) to reorganise the text in some parts.

I have attached and edited pdf file, where these points are further detailed.

Waiting for a suitably revised version soon,

Best regards

Federico Rossetti

Dear Authors,

many thanks for this further round of review and for having incorporated most of my comments/suggestions.

I am therefore pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in Solid Earth.

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

Sincerely,

Federico Rossetti

Thank you for choosing Solid Earth

Bets regards

Federico Rossetti