Magnetic flux ropes within reconnection exhausts close to the centers of heliospheric current sheets near the Sun

Referee: [Abstract / interpretation of signatures] The central attribution (Abstract and the interpretation of the observed signatures) that the reported |B| enhancements, guide-field strengthening, <10 km/s speed excess, and occasional density/temperature changes uniquely identify flux ropes formed by secondary reconnection plus merging is not supported by any quantitative comparison to the cited simulations. No predicted |B| ratios, merging timescales, or scale-size distributions from the referenced runs are shown to match the observed few-thousand-km structures, leaving the causal claim under-constrained relative to alternatives such as compressional structures or primary-reconnection remnants.

Authors: The manuscript attributes the observed structures to secondary reconnection and merging on the basis of their repeated occurrence inside the sunward exhaust, their location relative to the X-line, their scale (still >> ion inertial length), and the specific combination of signatures—particularly the guide-field enhancement—that matches qualitative expectations from the cited multi-scale reconnection simulations. We do not claim these signatures uniquely identify the origin; the wording in the abstract and main text is one of attribution based on context and consistency. Alternatives such as compressional structures or primary-reconnection remnants are less favored because they do not naturally explain the systematic guide-field dominance or the preferential visibility when the spacecraft is nearest the HCS center. We agree that adding an explicit discussion of possible alternatives and a qualitative comparison to reported simulation characteristics would improve clarity. We will therefore revise the abstract, add a short paragraph in the discussion, and note the absence of direct numerical matching to specific simulation outputs as a limitation of the present observational study. revision: partial

Referee: [Data analysis and identification procedure] The identification of the flux ropes during the two HCS crossings lacks reported statistical significance tests, error bars on the measured enhancements, explicit data-exclusion criteria, or a systematic exclusion of alternative plasma structures. These omissions are load-bearing because the claim that the structures are 'distinguishable' and 'most readily identifiable' at the HCS center rests on the robustness of the selection process.

Authors: The flux ropes were identified from clear, repeated enhancements in |B| (especially the guide-field component) together with modest speed excesses and occasional density/temperature variations, as shown in the time-series figures and described in the results section. We acknowledge that the current manuscript does not present formal statistical significance tests, per-event error bars, or an explicit list of exclusion criteria. We will revise the methods/results to include instrument-derived uncertainty estimates on the reported enhancements, to state the selection criteria more explicitly (including how ambiguous intervals were handled), and to add a brief discussion of why other plasma structures are unlikely given the observed signatures and their occurrence exclusively near the HCS center. These additions will directly address the robustness concern. revision: yes