Dear Editor, dear authors,

please find some comments to the manuscript egusphere-2024-1906 in the supplement.

Thank you to the authors for their interesting study. However, I have some concerns regarding the assumptions and methodology. Without clarification, it is difficult for me to discuss the results. I have outlined my concerns as follows:

• Please clearly state the application of the current study. How does it help to characterize the specific site?
• In all cases, the dip angles are constant. What would happen if these parameters were to change?
• Line 48: What do you mean by “homogeneous categories”? What is homogeneous within these categories?
• Line 53: How did you define the deviatoric stress?
• What is the initial state of stress in the system? When there is a fault and wedge-shaped structures, the system has already experienced stress changes. See the following paper:
• The evolution of pore pressure, stress, and physical properties during sediment accretion at subduction zones.
• Line 64: Did you evaluate the capability of the “uniform bulk Coulomb material” in modeling real cases or sandbox models within the proposed framework of this manuscript? Please include the validation results.
• Line 72: How does “Optum CE” work? Which equations are considered? How does it discretize the equations? Is there any mesh refinement scheme used? Please provide a summarized explanation.
• Line 75: I noticed that the applied load is unknown, so I assume that a fixed displacement rate was implemented. Please mention this. Also, how did you verify the stability and mesh independence of the results? I noticed that a similar mesh was used for all cases.
• For 2D, 10,000 elements were used, while for 3D, 40,000 elements were considered. Are the element sizes the same in both cases? If not, on what basis are the results compared? Furthermore, the mesh dependency analysis for the 3D cases is unclear, and the stability analysis is not included. Without this information, the accuracy of the results and the impact of boundary conditions are questionable (at least for me).
• Line 148: In all cases, back-thrust is observed. However, in the literature, there are instances where back-thrusting does not occur. If the entire range of parameters is explored, some cases would likely show no back-thrust. Clarification is needed here. See the following paper:
• Control of décollement strength and dip on fault vergence in fold-thrust belts and accretionary prisms.
• Pore pressure and overpressure development are not considered. What would happen if these parameters were included? What is the sensitivity of the conclusions to this parameter?