See additional comments uploaded to the interactive discussion from an anonymous review.

See pdf notes

Thank you for the efforts to address the comments - the paper could still be further strengthened rom a wind energy domain perspective, but the vast majority of the comments have been addressed.

One issue that still is not addressed and needs to be in particular is comment 36 / response 36. I Should have made my concern on this stronger as this was one of my biggest concerns around the whole study and its validity from a wind turbine domain perspective (again compared to the state of the art). If you look for example at the O&M Model from ECN you all see that a key distinction is that the failure rates for minor to major repairs to full component replacements are quite different. You need to heavily qualify the entire study and findings based on the lack of distinguish between repairs and replacements and to heavily qualify the overall results based on the input assumptions. This needs to be corrected before final publication.

dear authors

your paper is now nearly accepted I would like to improve the discussion of comment36, as outlined by the associate editor: "One issue that still is not addressed and needs to be in particular is comment 36 / response 36. I Should have made my concern on this stronger as this was one of my biggest concerns around the whole study and its validity from a wind turbine domain perspective (again compared to the state of the art). If you look for example at the O&M Model from ECN you all see that a key distinction is that the failure rates for minor to major repairs to full component replacements are quite different. You need to heavily qualify the entire study and findings based on the lack of distinguish between repairs and replacements and to heavily qualify the overall results based on the input assumptions. This needs to be corrected before final publication." Please includes such aspects in your discussion. with such a more technical correction your paper will be accepted. Best Joachim Peinke (Chief editor)