Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful revisions, with which the reviewer was satisfled.

I do request one correction. Lines 29-35 seem to imply that mesoscale modeling at 10-km resolution is currently used for wind resource assessment. Please acknowledge that when mesoscale models are typically run for wind resource assessment, they are usually run at convection-permitting scales (not the 10-km resolution suggested by the current text in lines 29-35). For example, the Wind Toolkit dataset from NREL/NLR is run at 2-km resolution (Draxl et al. 2015, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261915004237), and the NOW-23 dataset from NREL/NLR is also at 2-km resolution (Bodini et al. 2023). Further, the most recent Global Wind Atlas version was run at 3-km resolution (Davis et al. 2021, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/104/8/BAMS-D-21-0075.1.xml). Please modify the text in lines 29-35 to acknowledge that other wind resource assessment datasets are available at finer than 10-km resolution and include one or two of these references.

Thank you for incorporating the suggested references that acknowledge recent wind resource assessment databases incorporate finer resolution that are in fact convection-resolving. However, by using "In contrast," the phrasing of the revised text implies that these other datasets are not convection-resolving: "recent operational datasets have adopted similar fine-scale resolutions (2–3 km grid spacing), including the Global Wind Atlas (Davis et al., 2023), the Wind Toolkit for the continental United States (Draxl et al., 2015), and the offshore-focused NOW-23 dataset (Bodini et al., 2024). In contrast, Convection-Permitting Models (CPMs) provide high-resolution simulations with grid spacing ≤ 4 km, in which deep convection is explicitly resolved rather than parameterized." There are no deep convection parameterizations used in the GWA, the WTK, or NOW-23, so implying that there are, with "In contrast", is misleading to readers. Please revise the text to acknowledge that these other datasets also permitted deep convection, perhaps simply by removing "In contrast."

Thank you for your thoughtful response to the reviewers' comments and my suggestion. I am happy to recommend this manuscript for publication in Wind Energy Science.

Dear authors,
I am happy to follow the recommendation of the Associate Editor and suggest the publication of your manuscript as is.
Thank you for choosing Wind Energy Science for publishing your work.

Best regards
Julia Gottschall