Dear authors,
Congratulations with an interesting paper. The first wake deviation measurements on an offshore wind turbine.

I think you have answered the reviews satisfactorily.

There are still some aspects of the interpretation of your results I would like you to consider:
1) Comparison with Rockel et al 2014
2) Physical interpretation of the results

Regarding 1), you say that main point of your paper, namely that the wake deflection is "delayed", is supported by their paper. Looking at their figure 3 I can indeed see that the wake is sloped upward when the turbine "leans back", and I can also see that the start of the PIV measurements around x = 0.75 D, the center of the wake as well as the top (indicated by the yellow color) seems to be ever so slightly below the upright case. The vertical displacement is maybe 0.02 to 0.04 D. However, the geometrical situation is different from your setup. The turbine in the windtunnel is not rotated around the nacelle, but around the bottom of the turbine tower. The upper tip would thus not be a hub height (250 mm) plus half the rotor diameter (200 mm/2), i.e at 350 mm, but rather at cos(17.6 degrees) = 0.957 times that. The upper tip would therefore be 0.082 D lower than in the upright case. It can therefore not be concluded that Rockel et al see the same as you (unless I have misunderstood something). I think you are stretching the results of Rockel too much, and that this should be downplayed or removed.
This leads to point 2). Your main conclusion is based on a measurement area that in the near wake covers the central part of the wake, while further downstream it covers the entire wake. One hypothesis could be that most of the wake and especially the outer part behaves as expected, i.e. it moves in the other direction than the yaw right from x = 0. However, the central part is initially deflected by the nacelle, which is in yaw misalignment, such as to align the flow with the nacelle. This could lead to the opposite deflection near the wake as you observe, because the setup only allows to probe the central part close to the rotor. This might not be right, but I think you should describe this scenario as a possible explanation of your results. Surely, to be certain one should do more detailed measurements that would cover the whole wake also close to the rotor. That must be left for future investigations.