Dear Authors,
I concur with the Referee#2 in considering this revised version improved.
However, the current version of the manuscript can not be accepted for publication.
Firstly, I concur with the Referee in considering the English language rather rough in most parts with many misprints. Accordingly, a deep revision of the English writing is compulsory.
Then, I consider the manuscript still poorly organised. In particular: (i) a "Geological background" section is missing; (ii) A "Material and methods" section is missing and should present the rationale of the study, together with a detailed presentation of the methods (including the principles of the geomorphological analysis), analytical procedure and details; (iii) many parts of the text should be, re-phrased, removed or re-organised. In particular, methods should be separated from data presentation and these from inferences that should be presented only in the discussion section; (iv) the numerical modelling section should be part of the discussion section; and (v) the conclusion should summarise the main outcomes of the study in the form of bullet points. Also the Abstract should be revised. Moreover, the main implications for the understanding of the intraplate deformation should be made explicit both in the discussion (maybe by including a new section) and in the conclusion section. This latter point is essential to increase the potential impact of the manuscript and to be coherent with the premise of the manuscript as stated in the Introduction section.

I have attached an edited pdf file where these points are detailed. If further clarification is needed, please do not esitate to contact me.

I therefore return the manuscript with a request of moderate revision in order to revise the manuscript following the above recommendations and to improve sensibly the quality of the English writing.

Looking forward receiving a suitable revised manuscript,

Yours sincerely,
federico rossetti

Dear Authors,
your manuscript is improved sensibly, but not ready yet for publication.

I still noted various misprints and the necessity to re-organise the sections/sub-section in the text. Also the Figure captions needs revision. Finally, despite I am not a native English speaker, I found the text still rather rough in some parts. Attached is an edited pdf version of your typescript were I propose some changes, including a reorganisation of the data presentation, separating methods from results. I am available to provide further advice/clarification if needed.

Waiting for a suitably revised version soon,

Sincerely,
federico rossetti

Dear Authors,
Thanks for this further round of review.

I realized the Authors did not accept my suggestion of manuscript re-organisation. I still think that as it stands the structure of the manuscript is redundant in some parts, since the methods (section 2.1) are repeated when the results of the study are presented. Moreover, results should be clearly separated and better organised.

I am not happy about the Authors' decision and the final organisation of the revised typescript, but the manuscript is scientifically sound and I have therefore decided to accept it for publication in Solid Earth, pending the technical corrections as outlined below.

I reiterate the request to (i) separate the sections "Introduction", "Geological Background" and "Material and Methods" as 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and renumber the following sections; and (ii) delete "1 Introduction and Tectonic Setting".

Sincerely,
federico rossetti

Dear Authors,
I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in Solid Earth, pending the technical corrections as outlined in the decision letter.

Thanks for choosing Solid Earth as a platform to publish your study.

Sincerely,
federico rosseti