Overall, this is a carefully planned and executed study. I recommend publication after consideration of the attached comments. 

This study evaluates and compares three advanced methods for reconstructing wind fields in real-time, aiming to improve Lidar-Assisted Control for large wind turbines. The paper assesses whether these methods can provide high-fidelity inflow characterization using a hub-mounted pulsed lidar sensor, and further evaluates the impact of several parameters for the wind field estimation.

The range and depth of the analysis is very impressive and addresses an important research topic. The provided figures are a good selection and help to understand the results. Further, the paper is nicely written and very well organized.

There is only one smaller point: It is not clear to me, what is the benefit of using 6 beams measuring with B1 to B6 at [0,240,120,240,120,0] deg over using 3 beams measuring with B1, B2, B3, B2, B3, B1, resulting in measurements at the same location. But maybe I misunderstood. Further, it is not clear, how the selection of the beam location and order impact the results of the proposed methods. I guess that it would be too much to additionally include the scan order into the parameter sensibility study, but it would be helpful to explain in a bit more detail, how “This azimuthal configuration ensures optimal coverage of the rotor area”.

Further, I hope these minor comments will help to improve the manuscript:

• Figure 2: Very helpful figure! You could add the “wind speed quantity” in the last block as “best-performance case selection for each wind speed quantity”, or simply remove it from the figure. Further, it might be good to always refer to “wind speed quantity”: sometimes it is “wind quantity” (Sec. 3.4) or “wind speed input” and it took me some time to understand that this is the same selection.
• Figure 3 (c): the green x-axis is pointing upwind, but the values in the x ticks are negative.
• Figure 4: using equal aspect ratio for each axis might help to get a better impression of the scan, c) is not fully projected.
• Figure 4/5/9: Would be nice to add the radius of the DTU10MW somewhere in the text or figure captions.
• l34f: “Therefore, pulsed lidars exhibit higher coherence with the rotor-effective wind speed (REWS)” This statement needs some refinement from my perspective. As pointed out in Simley et al 2018, standard circular scanning cw lidar usually have a larger coherence bandwidth compared to 4-beam pulsed lidar systems, both performing a scan in 1 second.
• l170f: “…only the longitudinal u-component can be estimated from the LOS…”. Maybe it would be good to rephrase this: Usually, also other components are estimated from nacelle-based lidar systems (e.g. u and v). How I understood it: the “dilemma” is that you cannot be sure, what is really true.
• Equation 5, l270: Z_{hub} in equation (italic) looks different from the one in the text before the equation and different from the one in l270 (lower case).
• Based on equation 5, the origin of the lidar should be impacted by the cos and sin of the shaft length.
• Punctuation after equations: (6,13) period missing, (7) period instead of comma, (8) comma missing.
• l244 / Figure 5: the lateral and vertical dimensions in Figure 5 look more like the dimensions from box B (which would make sense, since you are interested in rotor-averaged quantities). Maybe it is a typo. But if you used the dimensions of box A (width/height ~1.7 rotor diameter), it would be good to adjust the figures.
• l272: is it the number of points within A_R and the cuboid?
• l276, Figure C1: “lidar” here italic, before normal font.
• l304: \times missing for dimensions?
• l332: you could add 17 x 8 x 10 = 1360 to help the reader to understand where this number is coming from.
• l359, caption Figure 9: U looks different from before (overline covering not only U?).
• l379 “)” missing?
• l496: baseline errors are smaller than errors of POD LSQ for small/large angles, so they are not always “highest”.
• l515: the probe volume effects are not really accounted for in the wind field reconstruction, but in the lidar simulation… how it is phrased here one might think, lidar users have a choice.
• l638, caption Figure C1: Unit m is in italic.
• l653: “target” in italic, before normal font.