Dear authors,

thank you for the very thorough revision of your manuscript and careful documentation! You have essentially accommodated all of the reviewers´ suggestions. I have noticed two very minor technical errors: No orientation is indicated for the sketches in Fig 2 (and thus, is Pindos really "obducting from the northwest" (l. 54)), and a label in Fig 3 says "Contruction road" ("s" missing).

A suggestion I would like to make is to add to your conclusions one sentence about the multiple geodynamic scenarios. Your results exclude those invoking a passive margin scenario. If there is evidence for a Rhodope provenance as suggested in the Schenker et al. sketch you could also exclude the bivergent obduction scenario. This would nicely wrap up the story you opened in Fig. 2 and the corresponding text passage. I leave it to you whether and how you include that.

I am pleased to accept your highly interesting manuscript! This inversion story from a different setting than the more common intraplate examples increases the scope of our Special Issue.

Jonas

Dear authors,

We are pleased to accept your manuscript to the special issue on 'Inversion tectonics - 30 years later', subject to the technical corrections (and possibly the suggestion) as outlined by the Topical Editor.

Thank you for submitting your work with Solid Earth,
Susanne Buiter