Thank you for your rigorous response to reviewer comments, which have in general thoroughly addressed all points raised by the reviewers. The clarity of your reply is commendable and appreciated.

Please consider the following additional suggestions from the handling editor before final consideration for publication in Solid Earth. Minor further additions re. the main concerns raised by reviewer 1 for coseismic slip distances:

- Add a couple of sentences/short section discussing observed coseismic slips from other strike-slip faults globally to add confidence that modelled coseismic slips fall within the range naturally observed for the modelled earthquake magnitudes and observed length of the Húsavík-Flatey Fault Zone.
- Add further description and justification (i.e. references) for the major modelled physical parameters that specifically can impact coseismic fault slip distances (e.g. Cplast or others) to section 2 (model setup).
- Briefly explain your rationale for using higher R0 values in this study compared to Li et al. (2023), i.e. is this simply to investigate the maximum potential a Tsunami may have (?), and clarify the sentence in lines 156-158 - do you mean "in comparison to values used in Li et al. (2023)"?

Upon satisfactory addressing of these suggestions, I would be pleased to consider the manuscript for publication in this Solid Earth Special Issue.

Best,

Jordan J.J. Phethean

Thank you for the final additions as recommended by the handling editor to further clarify and address Reviewer 1's main comment, re. coseismic slip distances along the modelled fault, which now allows the reader to more critically understand the work. The manuscript reads very well and presents an excellent contribution to this Solid Earth Special Issue, with a focus on the hazards associated with rifting and associated strike-slip tectonics. I am pleased to recommend for publication in Solid Earth.