The submitted manuscript presents the results of an experimental campaign where a 3x3 cluster of turbines are yawed at various angles. The experimental setup is described in detail and no context or information seems to be missing in the text. The results are mostly presented well and show interesting findings. Although the present manuscript makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusions for turbine arrays, the yaw-asymmetric findings for turbine columns are interesting and might warrant further investigation. It is difficult however to draw conclusions for turbine arrays, because of the high irregularities between the lateral columns. 

I think it highly likely that these irregularities are caused by unintended wall-interactions, due to the lateral turbines being placed only 1.33D from the wall. Depending on how the wall-boundary layer evolves, the steered wakes probably heavily interact with this layer. The assumption of neighbouring specular farms on line 137 regarding this is rather questionable. An argument might be made if the neighbouring farm was mirrored perfectly, but this falls apart when the yaw-asymmetry presented here is taken into account, since this makes mirroring impossible.

Could you please provide further explanation on how the wall-nearness would not cause measurement problems?

Furthermore, the authors show many scatter plots that could perhaps be better visualised as heatmaps for easier interpretation.

Other comments and suggestions:

1. The literature review in the introduction might benefit from a table summarizing the previous works. Sec.4 could then refer back to this as well.

2. Fig.1: for clarity, perhaps color/shade/texture the different components and add a legend or define them in the caption. For this and all figures, place them closer to where they are referenced.

3. Please refer to Micheletto et al. (2023b) in the caption of Fig. 2 as well and make it clear in the caption that the data presented there is not from this campaign.

4. Fig. 3: The data points should extend to the lateral rotor tips instead of the hub. Perhaps add another subplot of the same size of a x-z slice with a turbine sketch and horizontal lines labelled a/b/c/d/e

5. How did you calibrate the zero position of the yawing stepper motor? Additionally, how did you ensure that the zero position aligned with a step position of the stepper? In other words, how did you ensure that your target of 0deg resulted in 0deg and not something on the interval [-0.9, 0.9]? You do mention this briefly in Fig. 11.

6. Fig. 5 shows a tower with a very high roughness. Can you comment on how this could show up in your measurements?

7. Lines 240-246: It would have been interesting to replace C2 with a tuft at hub height to see if the local wind direction changed visibly.

8. For all scatter plots, please use a higher aspect ratio to space the markers out more: I'd say use up to 80% of the text width. For Fig. 7 I would suggest swapping the axes too.

9. In Fig. 7, could you include the LLS fit of each column separately too?

10. At the end of line 343 you state: "yawed in the opposite direction of the turbines upstream." However, in EXP2 there are Type 2 configurations according to table 1, meaning that C3 is yawed in the same direction as C2?

11. Sec. 3.2: For consistency, it makes more sense to compare Ct values than thrust values. Since you use a constant hub height wind velocity, Ct and T, and Cp and P are just scaled pairs. Therefore, I would advice to either present Ct and Cp results, or T and P results, but not mixed.

12. Sec. 3.3: Consider defining an EXP3 collection and including a row of Uinf values in table 1.

13. Is there a reason you only tested increased free stream velocities, but not decreased?

14. h and l are defined in the captions of figures, but not in text.

15. Typesetting of h on line 104.

16. Table 1. bottom right cell is formatted differently, I suggest -5.4:5.4:5.4 for consistency.

17. Fig 13d is not labeled