The topic of the manuscript is very interesting for the local geology as well as a reproducible approach for other basin setting for which heterogeneous boreholes information are available. The manuscript is generally well written, clear and concise. Only the Abstract needs significantly improvement. In fact, the abstract struggles to summarize the study effectively and comprehensively. It is not clear that there is and what is the difference between the datasets used to calibrate (A) and to derive the profiles (B). Nor is the methodology clear (sonic velocity or seismic interval velocity). There is not enough information on the stratigraphy of the area. These should be few, synthetic but are essential to understand the logic of the work. The importance of the Top of Jurassic boundary and its relationships with the rest of the stratigraphy should be presented and highlighted. On the contrary, the formulas do not really need to be included in the abstract. possibly only the value of R2. For the rest, it's a pleasure to read a well-crafted manuscript with well-defined objectives from the beginning. I have only one major concern about Figure 1, which needs to be completely redrawn.  This and other minor suggestions are indicated in the annotated pdf.

Finally, I recommend publication once the (few) comments above have been addressed.

This paper is well written, and the data could be of interest but it lacks physics and perspectives to fully understand its importance.

- First, the authors state that their new vertical stress gradients really improve the estimate of vertical stress but they never compare their model with a model using a linear trend. I guess their main results should be to show how wrong we are we use a simplistic equation. 

- Then none of their equations are discussed in terms of physics, or their implication in term of geological processes. Using a power law implies a certain evolution type with depth. Authors don't justify neither the form of eq. 2.

- the principal explanation for outliers in bulk density is overpressure. But there are many others factors that can be important, as cementation, variation of stress paths, and they are barely disuccsed;

I've put more comments in the files attached.

for all this reasons I recommend majors revision