Thank you to the editors and authors for the opportunity to review the manuscript by Santolaria et al. The manuscript provides a new structural interpretation of the evolution of an area in the southern Pyrenees, based on field mapping, interpretation of 2D seismic sections, and on 2D cross section building. The area is structurally complex, located in between two thrust sheets and the focus of the manuscript is on the evolution of an outcrop of Keuper interpreted as a diapir (Clamosa diapir), and the adjacent anticline (Mediano Anticline). I appreciated that the authors contextualize the importance of their interpretation regarding the formation of the Clamosa diapir, by pointing out that diapirs formed purely during the shortening phase in fold-and-thrust belts are not that commonly described in the literature (whereas pre-shortening salt diapirs are well-recorded).  The manuscript is very well written and nicely illustrated, and I would recommend it for publication.

I have the following comments related to the interpretation and evolution of the area, and presentation of the results.

1) The authors provide the seismic lines with the interpretation, and it is difficult to assess if the seismic lines provide any constrains for the interpretation of the areas which are key to the story. This is especially important in relation to the Trillo back thrust at depth. The Trillo back-thrust is a critical element of the entire history around the Clamosa diapir, because it would have allowed the shallowing of the Keuper cored structure and hence its erosion. However, it is not possible for the readers to assess if the geometries of Figures 7 and 8 are really supported by data, or are based on the conceptual models of the authors. I would encourage the authors to share the uninterpreted seismic sections.

2) Regarding the salt inflation of Clamosa diapir and Mediano anticline, the way it has been sketched in the Figure 9e-f poses some questions. The authors are implying that salt flowing from somewhere in the Triassic basin, was able to inflate these structures, from their depiction as portions along the surface of the Trillo back in Figure 9e, to the salt cored diapir and anticlines in 9f. Also, the figure implies that salt inflation was able to uplift the entire portion of the thrust sheet between Trillo thrust and Olson anticline. I find it difficult to sustain that salt flow alone would be able to open these vertical and horizontal welded surfaces without being assisted by additional forces. For the inflation of the Clamosa diapir, one could argue that if the Gavarnie thrust starts moving, differential displacement between Gavarnie and Montsec thrusts could aid in opening the diapir, but in that case also, some collapsing of the structures would be observed.

3) Finally, the basis for arguing that the Clamosa diapir was formed purely during the compressional stage is based on discarding the possibility of pre-shortening salt movements within the area, which some authors have proposed earlier. I do not discard any or the other possibility. But it could be argued that the observation that the diapir is covered by different stratigraphic levels (Jurassic in the southern margin vs, cretaceous in northern) could already be pointing to salt movement, although the authors resolve with an earlier structural high.

Some minor comments typos:

Fig 3. Caption, correct “nummulitic”.

Line 162. “Teixell and Barnolas”, year is missing.