Dear Dr. Petrakakis,
Your revised version adequately addressed the reviewers' comments and it is potentially suitale for publication on SE.
Nonetheless, I have some additional critical points to be fixed before manuscript acceptance that need a further round of (moderate) revision. in particular, they deal with (1) the scientific rationale adopted in the study, (2) manuscript organisation, and (3) the significance of the research outside of the study case.

(1) - Scientific rationale
1a - the Abstract, Introduction and Discussion sections are too focused to the specific geological case that, despite interesting, should be better introduced to the broad audience of the journal. Apart the local significance, what is the general geological problem that the manuscript aims to address and characterise? which the (expected) advancement of knowledge in the discipline (tectono-metamorphic evolution of high-grade basement terrains)?, etc..
1b - The Introduction, rather than focusing just on the specific case, should instead introduce the general geological problem, its significance, gaps of knowledge and aims the manuscript pursues with respect to the existing background information. On this regard, Table 1 should be part of the geological background, rather than part of the Introduction section. In other words: Why this study should be of interest for a broad audience?
1c - Criteria for sample selection, sample location and constituent mineralogy are not provided. A table is needed. As far I have understood, your study is based just on one sample? How representative? How chosen? This information would greatly help the reader to evaluate the scientific rationale followed in this study.

(2) Manuscript organisation (see also point (3) below)
2a - A figure dealing with the regional geology is not provided in the Introductio section, despite essential for people not familiar with the regional geology.
2b- a Materials and Method section is missing and this information is mixed up with the introduction statements (see the ending part of the Introduction section). This section should also provide analytical details.

(3) - Impact of the study (see also point 1a above). As it stands, despite providing interesting results, the manuscript appears as a regional study of local significance. The Authors are thus encouraged to expand the implications of this study and extract results that can be of interest for a broader audience, i.e. broaden the impact of the presented results away from the study area. A specific sub-section of the Discussion dedicated to these broad implications would greatly increase the impact and relevance of the study.

I have provided an annotated version of the manuscript, where these and other points that need further consideration by the Authors are detailed.

Broader impact of this study is primarily depending on how this criticism will be addressed in the revised version. Critical on this regard is the re-organisation of the Introduction, Discussion and Conclusion sections

sincerely

federico rossetti

Dear Dr. Petrakakis,
thanks for this further round of review. I am pleased to accept the manuscript in the present form for publication in Solid Earth.

With that said, I would remind you that it is a prerogative of the journal Editor to comment the submitted paper and suggest improvements in line with the scope and the audience of the journal. A scientific editor is not a notary who simply endorses the decision of the reviewers...
There is no contradiction in stating that the reviewers' comments were adequately addressed by the Authors and demanding at the same time to broaden the potential impact of the manuscript. In this specific case, I provided what I consider constructive criticism and I am confident that now the manuscript is improved and the audience of potential readers has expanded.


sincerely,
federico rossetti