I am reviewing this paper for the second time and, although the discussion has been substantially reworked, I have to admit that I am quite disappointed to see that nothing has really changed with respect to the last version. The paper is still well written and provides detailed information on the microstructural/petrological features of the Ronda shear zone, with evidence of melt infiltrations - which I think is the most important point the authors have to focus on -, but the data are again over-interpreted (they have no argument to say that melt has enhanced strain localization; and apparently, the authors agreed with this comment) and the authors did not address any of my concerns/comments. For instance, I recommended to the authors to synthesize the structural section and add complementary data to the « petrological/chemical » section (more data of Mg#), but the structural section is roughly the same and, in contrast, they have reduced the chemical section without adding any microprobe data. Furthermore, only comparing structural/petrological features with other peridotite shear zones (some of them being not really comparable in terms of sizes, and hence, in terms of P-T conditions over the strain gradient) is not enough to argue that melt-enhanced strain localization occurred in Ronda. So I am sorry, but again, I do not recommend this paper for publication and I strongly encourage the authors to better consider my former review to improve your next version. I also have some minor comments that the authors will find below.
With my Best Regards,
Line 34 : delete « the » shear zones
Line 49: Deformation-induced
Line 53: Reaction-induced
Line 69-70: Sorry but this sentence is wrong: we never proposed that stress increased where strain is localized. On the contrary, our model involves that strain localizes because of a stress drop due to grain size reduction. The difference of stress you see is related to the lithosphere strength profile.
Line 70: What does « mixed peridotites » means ? I think you are mentioning « mixed phases », but please, rephrase.
Line 202: ODF means Orientation Distribution function, not O. Density F.
Line 200-215: By the way, there is something wrong there, because no one of your figure shows an ODF; there are only pole figures with or without texture, depending on the amount of data point. In your case, the ODF is only used to calculate the Jindex. Please, correct this paragraph accordingly.
Line 203: The Mindex is not based on the ODF, but on the relative distribution of uncorrelated misorientation angles between the measured and theoretical ones (Skemer et al., 2005).
Line 208: The color scale of pore figures refer to « multiple of UNIFORM distribution », not « random distribution ».
Line 210: Please, expand on how you resolved the GND. Maybe you did it this way, but I don’t think you have implemented the GND in MTEX directly from the paper of Pantleon (2008). I suppose instead you have used the functions « fitDislocationSystems », which has been implemented by the MTEX team. If I am correct, please modify your text accordingly.
Line 253: the same here: it seems that you confound ODF with pole figure. Please, clarify.
Figure 3: If you excludes the olivine-rich matrix from grain size calculations, which represents a significant part of the peridotites, how do you know that grain size does not reduce with increasing strain ? And what about the pinning effect on grain size ?
Figure 3: Furthermore, plotting the grain size data for all phases in one graph is difficult to read. Please, separate them, at least for grain size. To me, it seems that there is a slight reduction of the mean size in any case.
Line 311-312. Only giving one axis with respect to the foliation plane is not enough. You also have to say that  is normal to the foliation.
Line 325: What is your percentage threshold in terms of secondary phases to say that you are dealing with a olivine-dominated matrix or a mixed matrix? Even for mixed matrix samples, most of the ones you described have olivine as the far dominant phase (up to 80%). Please, clarify.
Line 337: The phase abundance you describe does change with the strain gradient, so how melt can enhance strain localization?
Line 338: Coarse-grained olivines
Line 359: (mrd, M) ??? Please, give the values.
Line 407-410: in line 407, you say that grain size is constant through the whole transect, but in line 410, you mention that « in contrast to grain size, AR remain constant… ». Please, clarify.
Figure 11: In terms of chemistry, no data has been added to confirm the chemical gradient. This is yet a major point of this paper.
Line 684: You claim that grain size is different between tectonite and mylonite, but you say the opposite in the abstract. Please, clarify.
Line 717: You say that there is a strong CPO along the transect, but in Précigout and Hirth (2014), we documented a decreasing CPO with increasing strain in the top mylonite. And this CPO get close to complete randomization nearby the shear zone boundary.
Line 720: A-type is not dominant in the top mylonite, where AG-type and B-type mostly occur (Précigout and Hirth, 2014).
Line 734: Grain size reduction is a matter of neoblast amount, OK, but still, there is a grain size reduction with a possible rheological effect.
Line 745: De Ronde and Stünitz is not relevant here, because there is no plagioclase, nor other phase transition across the ronda shear zone (Spl stability field).
Line 768: Yes, Tommasi is able to localize where melts are localized, which is apparently not the case here, based on what you show.
Line 793: What do you mean by « shaped the shear zone »?