In the revised version of the manuscript the Authors have addressed most of the concerns raised by the referees. The presentation of the dataset has been improved, the objectives are clearer, structural analysis and interpretations have been better discussed and not overinterpreted, and clarifications on sample measurements have been provided.
However, before being able to accept the manuscript for publication in Solid Earth I invite the Authors improving two aspects of the manuscript:

1) The first paragraph of the abstract is describing something that the Authors are not able to achieve with their dataset since they say that “Analysis of structural and magnetic fabric data yield no kinematic information on the direction and sense of seismic slip”. Therefore, I suggest to re-adjust this first paragraph in order to be more consistent with main findings of the manuscript. For example, the Authors can add a sentence clearly stating the general problem being addressed by the study, i.e. difficulties in using magnetic anisotropy from small samples to infer fault kinematics.

2) Some figures have to be improved.
Figure 2: add some details to show: a) the 3 cm wide fault vein, that is foliation-parallel and exhibiting a 5-mm-thick band of bluish, altered pseudotachylyte at its top; b) the brittle, steeply W-dipping normal faults crosscutting the ductile fabric & calcite slickenfibres on some of the fault planes.

Some labelling or numbers in figures 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 are too small.

Sincerely
Cristiano Collettini

Dear Authors,
based on the Topical Editor's report and overall assessment of the review process, your manuscript can be accepted for publication in Solid Earth pending the corrections outlined by the Topical Editor.

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

Sincerely,
Federico Rossetti