General comments:

This research article investigates wake steering with fixed yaw offset in a commercial wind farm. The use of fixed yaw offsets allows for comparison with wake model predictions, which is valuable for further confidence in the models and future implementation in optimized wake steering algorithms.

In this article power ratios from a commercial wind farm are compared to model predictions from the newest version of the FLORIS model, which generally shows very good agreement with the SCADA results assessed from the turbines. Although there still seem to be some uncertainties related to offsets in wind direction, the reasoning for the implemented correction seems logical and the presented results show good agreement with model predictions. The influence of second-order effects in the wake model predictions, such as the asymmetry in wake steering, secondary steering and the yaw added wake recovery due to Gauss-curl is discussed. Furthermore, the results are comprehensively discussed with results from simulations and wind tunnel experiments.

Some important details about the wind turbines and farm setup are sparsely described, which might be due to restrictions from the farm operator. If this is the case, it gives some limitations to the repeatability of the work. However, the presented work is assessed to be an important contribution on the way to implementing optimized wind farm control in practice.  Overall, I recommend this article for publication. I have only some minor comments, most of which are insignificant technical corrections.

Specific comments:

P3.L62. “Results show agreement between model predictions and measured results.” This sentences sounds very conclusive to end the introduction. Maybe reformulate “This research article will investigate agreement between ...”?

P3.L64. Test site overview: very good description of the turbine setup, but I could not find any information about the type and size of the wind turbines itself. I guess this information might underlie confidentiality agreement with the farm owner, but – if possible - some basic info about the approximate rotor diameter, rated power and thrust coefficient would be very useful for comparison with future datasets.

P3.L68. “… two ground-based lidars”. Where are these located in/next to the farm? Could the locations be included in Figure 1?

P3.L71. “While 10-minute average data is conventional (…), we believe it can be a challenge…”. I do strongly agree to that statement. Can you link this to the statement on P10.L170?

P4.”Figure 2” It took med some time to figure out the different offsets you measured. Would it be possible to include “compass direction” “vane direction” and “real wind direction” in the figure?

P5.”Figure 3. FLORIS model…” Is it possible to include the turbine numbers also in this figure?

Technical corrections:

P1.L23. “… necessary that the models are computationally efficient.”

P2.L24. “… (FLORIS) software framework (Laboratory (2019)) …”. Looks like the automatic referencing interpreted “laboratory” as an authors last name. Change to “NREL” or similar

P7.L111. “Table A1”. I assume “Table 2” is the correct reference here.

P8.L148. “Table A1”. As above I assume “Table 2” is the correct reference here.

P10.L171. “…energy ratio nadir”. I am not sure if “nadir” is a typo or has a meaning here.

P11.L209. “…correlated (such as turbulence level?) Perhaps both?”. This sentence is somewhat informal. Could you reformulate? I do however agree with the interpretation of these effects.

P13.L229. “…are critical.Boccolini et al. (2021)”. Revise punctuation.

P18. “Table A1. Summary of selv- and reference measured offsets by target”. I assume the capture text is not correct as it is the same as for “Table 2”.

General Comments

The paper describes the results of an experimental campaign with fixed yaw offsets on a small wind farm. The results are used to investigate wake-steering asymmetry and validate model predictions of recent additions to the FLORIS modelling tool.

The experimental design seems well thought-out and the results appear to support the conclusions that are drawn. The findings are thoroughly discussed with respect to other work in the field. However, little information is provided on the wind farm that is studied.

In my opinion, the paper provides a valuable contribution the wind energy community. It would benefit from a little more information on the wind farm being measured and the inclusion some quantitative measure of the model prediction quality.

Specific Comments

- Could you provide more details of the wind farm? What is the size of the wind turbine used in the experiment?

- What is the variability on the measured wind vane offset? Is it valid to assume it to be constant?

- Visually, the model seems to achieve a "good match" (135). What is considered "good"? Could you quantify the quality of the predictions in terms of percentage error, RMS, or a similar measure?

Technical Corrections

- Parenthesized citations should be adjusted to (Author, year) instead of (Author (year))

- Several figures have a font size that is too small to read, please increase size.

- 19 "... turbines. Wagenaar et al. (2012) Research" - adjust citation formatting

- 24 "analytical, or statistical," - statistical is not equivalent to analytical, remove comma's

- 24 "(Laboratory (2019))" - adjust reference to NREL

- 39 "(Churchfield et al. (2014).)" - comma after closing parenthesis

- 61 "Results show agreement between model predictions and measured results." - this statement does not belong in the introduction.

- 117 "and below, as shown in Fig. 4, and that above 14 m/s the offset is turning off." - adjust sentence structure

- 162 - "energy rations" - should be "energy ratios"?

- 173 "... the gains of correct steering, are more ..."  - redundant comma

- 229 "critical.Boccolini et al. (2021)" - adjust citation formatting

- Figure 3 - it would be good to have the turbines be numbered

- Figure 6 - a legend would be of value for clarity, could you consider another way to save space?

- Figure 4 - might add the number of the controlled turbine here as well

- Table 2 - move caption above table