The paper examines the mechanics of wind farm flow control strategies under realistic offshore conditions, specifically high veer. The analysis focuses on a budget analysis of mean kinetic energy, comparing five flow control strategies. This topic is highly relevant for the industrial application of wind farm flow control  and this paper delivers some critical insight into the efficacy of different strategies under more complex inflow conditions. The paper's methodology is sound and well explained, and the analysis thoroughly founded on the presented data. I therefore recommend the paper for publication with minor revisions.

The methodology of the paper is very thorough, from the sophisticated determination of inflow conditions to generate to the validation of the budget analysis. However, I believe the thoroughness obstructs the readability of the article in some instances. Therefore, I recommend to move some parts into an appendix, in particular the majority of current section 2.3 and section 3.2.1.

In section 2.2, I think the used model could be described in some more detail, especially how OpenFAST was set up and how the rotational speed of the turbine is controlled.

The authors write that the ratio of smearing width to cell size is 0.8, this appears very low to me and well below commonly found recommendations. If it is indeed not a misprint the authors should add some justification or point to validation.

I find the double naming convention for the wake mixing strategies, i.e. giving the modal numbers and the name, applied throughout the paper too long, it would improve readability to use either the modal numbers or the names.

In the companion paper, the authors speak of active wake mixing instead of wake mixing, for a reader that reads both papers it would be much easier if the same nomenclature is used.

Furthermore, I have the following minor suggestions:

section 2.1: I dont think it is mentioned anywhere explicitly that the origin is at the hub of the turbine, please add this information for the reader´s convenience.

l. 133: why is it called AP?

tables 5,6,7: there is a lot of white space in the tables that can be removed.

figure 14: the color scheme makes it quite difficult to subplot a, especially in greyscale.

figure 14 & 15: the caption says the panels are shown looking upstream, I think it should read downstream.

Figure 17 is very large, the size can be reduced significantly

Throughout the figures the authors use an inconsistent formatting for the normalizations, in most figures (e.g. figure 5), the axis labels are given as (coordinate) / (normalization scale), however, in some figures, e.g. figure 7, the x-axis label reads xD^-1. I think a consistent style would be nice.

see document attached