The paper represents an important step toward addressing a critical gap in the literature concerning global-to-local load transfer methodologies for floating offshore structures. The authors tackle this problem through a comprehensive comparison of the main approaches currently adopted in academia and industry.

The study analyses three principal modelling strategies. The first is the sequential workflow, which is generally considered current industrial practice, where the global integrated load analysis (ILA) is performed first and the resulting loads are subsequently transferred to a structural finite element model (FEA). The second is the integrated workflow where the global analysis and the structural FEA are solved through a strongly coupled hydro-structural interaction. The third is a simplified global analysis approach based on beam-element modelling.

The comparison is carried out using stresses evaluated on selected structural panels as the primary metric. The assessment includes comparisons of time histories, mean values, standard deviations, and fatigue-related indicators obtained through rainflow cycle counting and simulated fatigue damage evaluation.

The numerical results reinforce several important conclusions: (i) they highlight the critical importance of accurately predicting the global dynamic response, since any inaccuracy at the global level inevitably propagates into the local structural assessment; (ii) the study demonstrates the relevance of hydroelastic coupling effects: hull elasticity contributes significantly to the structural response, and rigid-body assumptions may lead to non-negligible deviations; (iii) the simplified beam-element approaches appear to have limited applicability for detailed structural assessment, especially in high stress-concentration regions like junctions; (iv) load superposition methods based on pressure linearisation provide results reasonably consistent with those obtained from fully coupled time-domain structural simulations.

The main limitation of the paper, however, is the absence of experimental validation. The conclusions are based entirely on numerical cross-comparisons, without comparison against experimental measurements of panel stresses or other physical reference data. As also acknowledged by the authors, this prevents a direct assessment of the accuracy of the investigated methodologies and partially limits the scientific strength of the conclusions.

Nevertheless, despite this limitation, the paper provides a valuable and timely contribution to the field. The breadth of the benchmark exercise, the quality of the comparisons, and the practical relevance of the findings make the work scientifically significant and deserving of publication.

The paper may be accepted in its current form. However, I would like to offer the following considerations that, if deemed relevant by the authors, could further strengthen the manuscript:

1. The manuscript lacks a dedicated literature review section. Including a broader discussion of previous scientific work on global-to-local load transfer and hydroelastic modelling would give additional value to the paper. In particular, it would be valuable to compare the investigated approaches with existing hydroelastic methodologies that have been validated against experimental campaigns or higher-fidelity numerical models and compare the conclusions in the discussion section.
2. Section 5.2.2 (“Modal FE analyses”) would benefit from additional clarification. It is not clear to me if the reported modal analyses are performed in air or as wet modal analyses accounting for hydrodynamic added mass effects.
3. The RNA peak load frequency is not clearly stated. It would be useful to compare it with the eigenfrequencies of the hull-tower system. This could help clarify whether resonance or near-resonance conditions may occur between the RNA excitation frequencies (3P pulsation) and the structural bending modes observed in some flexible models.
4. Finally, the conclusions section could be expanded to provide more insight into how the identified scientific gaps may be addressed in future work. Further discussion on unresolved hydroelastic aspects (influence of second-order wave loading, or the modelling of ballast-induced internal pressure) would be highly valuable. Additionally, the paper would benefit from recommendations for a dedicated experimental campaign capable of validating hydroelastic load transfer methodologies and local stress predictions.

This manuscript presents a comparative study of numerical approaches for load-to-stress analysis of floating offshore wind turbines (FOWTs). Using the same configuration, different approaches were first calibrated in terms of model properties and rigid-body motions, and were subsequently applied to compare stress responses within the FOWT under various loading conditions.

The key findings include:

• Structural dynamics can influence stress responses and, subsequently, fatigue damage estimation. The influence varies under different dominant loading conditions, such as wind- or wave-dominated cases.
• The consideration of nonlinear wave pressure introduces additional loads into the floater depending on the floater geometry, thereby affecting the stress responses compared with the linear wave-pressure assumption based on the mean water level.
• The unit-load reconstruction approach demonstrates accuracy comparable to that of the direct calculation approach, indicating its potential for future application in industrial practice.
• In addition, the authors highlight the importance of global load calculation, as it provides a fundamental basis for global-to-local load transfer approaches. The accuracy of the final local stress calculation is highly influenced by the global load assumptions and their accuracy.

It is evident that the objective of this study is not to identify the most accurate approach, given the limited availability of validation data, but rather to investigate key factors that may affect load-to-stress analysis and help reduce associated uncertainties. The comparisons are carefully designed, clearly documented, and well presented. The observations and discussions are meaningful and provide a valuable basis for future research.

Therefore, this manuscript is recommended for publication. Nevertheless, some refinements to the discussion of the results may help readers better understand the key findings. The following aspects could be further considered:

1. The stress comparison figures in Section 7, including Figures 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, contain a substantial amount of useful information. In the statistical plots shown in the middle of these figures, the use of colours could be reconsidered to distinguish different modelling assumptions or techniques, such as rigid versus flexible models, linear versus nonlinear wave pressure, or shell versus beam modelling. This may provide a clearer visual comparison of the effects of different modelling choices. At present, the colours represent different model IDs, which are already distinguished by their positions in the figures.
2. The authors provide observations and discussions for each loading case. It would be beneficial to include a summary subsection, for example Section 7.4, to synthesize the main findings. In particular, the variations in fatigue damage index under different modelling techniques and loading conditions may indicate conservative or unconservative estimations arising from different sources. A concise table or summary paragraph outlining the trends associated with the selection of different modelling techniques would better guide future research and industrial applications.
3. The authors observe that the rigid and flexible models exhibit different trends in fatigue damage index when aerodynamic loads are considered in addition to wave loads. Furthermore, when the wave height increases from LC6.X to LC7.X, the trend for the flexible model appears to change. This behaviour may be related to nonlinear hydrodynamic effects. Considering the increasing size of FOWTs and the growing need to account for floater flexibility, this observation is highly relevant to future studies. Further discussion or additional information of this point would be valuable.

Overall, the manuscript addresses an important topic in the numerical analysis of floating offshore wind turbines. The work is well organized and provides meaningful insights into the influence of modelling choices on load-to-stress analysis.