Dear Authors,

thank you for your interesting study. Before sending the manuscript to next step I would like to add few comments to those raised by the authors.

As a general comment, I would like to ask to check the consistency between the interpreted models across the manuscript, as the mid-crustal layer seems to be not always present. 

A final figure summarizing the results is needed to illustrate the interpreted structures in the area.

More context for the local RF needs to be given: where was this technique used before and which constraints was it able to give?

Figure 4: the local RF for the 3Hz panels should be shown up to 5 s, otherwise the wiggles are not readable.

Line 30: replace "underscores" with "highlights"

Line 114:  replace "Ps phase" with "Ps phase and its multiples"

Line 119: (like Ps) in brackets

Section 3.2.2 For the local RF it is not clear which catalogues has been used. Is there a table that I missed? Depth and distance are important parameters for such kind of applications. Please add a sentence that illustrates the events used at about L 135, and add a table of the events (stating depth and distance from the stations).

Section 3.2.5 The section describes an interesting way for the estimate of K. Anyway a direct comparison between the "normally" estimated K and the adjusted K needs to be shown together with the eventual obtained improvement; the significance of the improvement needs to be discussed.

L 246 the sensitivity tests need to be shown in the Appendix.

The RF (local and tele) at all stations need to be shown (as appendix)

The H-k results at all stations for all layers and for both techniques need to be shown.

Line 268-269: no, we cannot see how the local RF are constraining the H and k. This is missing in the manuscript, therefore the H-k results at all stations for all layers and for both techniques need to be shown.

Figure 5: The meaning of this figure is not clear, and needs to be explained.

Line 283: 7-% of the error means that the parameter is not constrained, how can these results be interpreted?

Figure 8: the discontinuities need to be marked, otherwise it is not clear what the authors are discussing.

Figure 9: The discontinuities need to be marked, e.g. local and tele RF show different polarities for the same depths, how are these differences explained?

Please address carefully all comments raised by the authors and by myself. In particular, the concerns regarding the significance of the methods used, the consistency of the results throughout the manuscript, and the demonstration of the robustness of both the data and the findings are essential. If these issues are not adequately resolved, they may lead to the rejection of the manuscript.