Dear Authors,

After reading your reply to the two reviewers, I have decided to carefully read your manuscript titled “Distribution, microphysical properties, and tectonic controls of deformation bands in the Miocene subduction wedge (Whakataki Formation) of the Hikurangi subduction zone”, submitted in the special issue “Faults, fracture and fluid flow, Solid Earth.
Your manuscript is very interesting with lots of new original data on deformation bands in a subduction wedge. I really like the broad Introduction, as well as the data presented. The writing style is clear and very informative. In a few places appear a bit redundant. I found your replies to both reviewer’s comments appropriate.

This new version is significantly improved with respect to the first submitted version, and I certainly support the publication of your paper. Hoverer, there are some minor issues that should be addressed before final acceptance for publication. They mostly pertain with some figures and text organization.
The major issue, in my view, pertains the data description and the use of figures. To describe your multidisciplinary results, you follow a criterion of phase of deformation: D1, then D2 and finally D3. One of the reviewer asked for a description of results based on type of data (field data, mesoscale pattern of D1-3, microtextural features of D1-3 DBs, grain size data obtained with image analyses, DBs spacing, and so on. I think that this suggestion was sound and probably would have forced you to summarize both text and figures, but you decided to keep your data presentation according to the phase of deformation. This is not a problem per se, and I support this decision. But please note that this way of data presentation needs very clear description and the use of figures in a systematic and chronological order. In the text, I found that (1) some figures are not fully descried despite composed of several images/panels, and (2) often the figures description jump from one figure to another (e.g., from 3 to 7, from 8 to 13, and so on… in many parts). To this end, I made several comments in the annotated PDF to simplify the readability of the manuscript, to follow strictly the figure numbering, and to reduce the numbers of figures (indeed, 21 figures are so much).

Below some other moderate issues:

Introduction
It was a pleasure to read such extensive introduction which I think is very useful for researchers approaching to DBs studies. The literature cited on deformation band faulting is very broad, but I found that you could mention also other case study areas (listed in the annotated PDF). I think you can also include such papers in the nice review introduction you have done. Apologize for self-citation, so feel free to decline the invitation to extend the literature if you think such contributions are not relevant.

Methods
Line 268-274. I am wondering why you have not measured directly the true spacing between DBs in both faults (FDZ) and "background" (non-DFZ) domains. Which is the advantage of image analysis from outcrop images? Wouldn't be more easy use real spacing measured in the field to compare your own data from different outcrops, and also with other datasets from literature? People working in DBs often measure N° elements per meter, or cumulative frequency approaching faults. Maybe a sentence in the Method is needed.

Line 275-290. I acknowledge the value to have synthetic images with different types of DBs spacing pattern, but this further analyses risk to lengthen the paper without adding significant or relevant data. Maybe can be moved in an appendix?

Results
Results are described according to the deformation phase. To keep this way of data presentation, you should describe figures progressively as much as possible. Probably, some images in several figures can be removed since they show similar features. Some examples below and in the annotated PDF.

Line 610-640 and figure 15. This synthetic spacing chapter can be moved to the online repository?

Figure 2. In the three geological cross sections, write AA', BB', CC' in green bold, as in the main map. This will facilitate the connection between the map and the cross sections.

Figure 3. Such figure is mentioned in the Study area section. I am wondering if this figure pertains to the Result section, since new original data are presented.

Figure 5a is mentioned after 5c, d, e. Figure 5b is never mentioned in the text. You may re-organize the figure panels and text accordingly to describe features chronologically in order of appearance in the manuscript. This suggestion is valid for several other figures.

Figure 7. The dotted rectangle in (a), that indicate (b), has a different shape respect image in (b). One is vertical, the other horizontal. Please correct. Further, (b) is stated as a fault core, but I am wondering if this is a real 30 cm thick fault core (for a fault with 1 m offset). Very unlike. Then, I think this is not a classical fault core. Seems like a high strain zone, indeed the fault zone, with multiple slip surfaces and distributed narrow “fault cores”. Very nice structures. Could you please clarify?

Figure 8. In line 420 and line 428 the “Figures 8a to 8 f” (6 images) are mentioned all together, without distinguish them or describing them progressively. If they show the same feature (grain size reduction within D2 DBs) why you show 6 images and not only one image or two? You may save space and simplify the readability of the text. Same comment for the other microtextural figures.

Figure 10 is described after figure 11. So, switch the figures.

Figures 17, 18 and 19 can be merged in one figure? You can show one example of DBs associated to fault, one example of DB non associated to faults (background) and all the diagrams in fig. 19. In this way you summarize everything in one figure. The rest of the figures can be moved in the supplementary materials. Or at least figures 17 and 18 can be merged in one without losing resolution?

Minor comments and suggestion in the annotated PDF.