Dear authors,

Many thanks for your detailed and attentive replies and updated manuscript. I am now happy to accept your manuscript for publication in SE after inspecting your changes. I suggest technical corrections only very minor suggestions, but leave it to your valued judgment to update these:

- If a reviewer misses the description of parameters (only friction coefficient in seed model), chances are that others may overlook it similarly. I suggest mentioning around the quoted section where you describe the other parameters.

- I would find it insightful to refer to the Nasrifar paper for those who wish to follow up on the choice of the gas model

- please use "extent" instead of "extension of observed seismicity" as suggested

- I appreciate the detailed explanation of the 5m fault core thickness,. and wouldn't mind seeing a bit more of this in the updated manuscript. I believe readers may benefi from this discussion.

Dear Dominik,

in addition to the corrections advised by Tarje Nissen-Meyer, there is also one reviewer comment and your answer, I would like to direct your attention to:
"We would like to clarify that, although the St. Gallen deep geothermal project has been considered an EGS in some studies (e.g., Breede et al.,2013), we prefer to classify it as a hydrothermal project, as no hydraulic stimulation for targeted shearing of fractures (i.e., hydro-shearing) adjacent to the injection well was performed."
This thought may arise for several readers, so that I'd suggest to include your rephrased answer somewhere in the beginning of your final revised manuscript, so that a statement clarifies your view.

I'm looking forward seeing your manuscript published in SE, Lotte.