The following are the basic comments on "Control Co-Design optimization of floating offshore wind turbines with tuned liquid multi-column dampers": the text is logically rigorous; the main lines are clear, and the science is strong. The basic opinion on "Control Co-Design optimization of floating offshore wind turbines with tuned liquid multi-column dampers" is as follows: The whole paper is logically rigorous, with a clear main line and a strong scientific basis. The topic is novel and of practical significance to the project, which is the main reason for the acceptance of the proposal. However, the paper still has the following problems that need to be explained and corrected: 

1. The article clearly describes the background and importance of the study but does not discuss in detail the literature survey of related work. The authors should have provided a more comprehensive overview of the relevant literature so that the reader can understand the current state of the research.

2. while an overview of the multi-objective CCD optimization framework is provided, specific technical details and algorithm selection seem to be missing. To enhance transparency and reproducibility, it is recommended that more methodological details be provided. 

3. In some places, the interpretation of the data seems to be less than intuitive, which may lead to reader confusion about some of the conclusions. A more in-depth explanation of key data and graphs is recommended. 

4. The article mentions that the optimization process did not consider the structural integrity of the deck and heave plate. This is an important omission that may affect the effectiveness of the optimization. It is recommended that at least some preliminary structural analysis be performed to confirm the feasibility of the optimized design. 

5. Although the optimization of the TLMCD is mentioned, there seems to be a lack of a detailed description of its specific operation principle and the selection of design parameters. It is suggested that more information on the design considerations of the TLMCD be provided. 

6. The article mentions the optimization of the blade pitch controller but does not discuss other possible control strategies or methods in detail. Considering the importance of control strategies to FOWT performance, a more comprehensive control strategy discussion is recommended. 

7. When listing the optimization variables, it is recommended that a detailed explanation be provided as to why these variables were selected and how they affect the system performance. 

8. Comparisons of dynamic response appear to be based on specific wind speeds. It is recommended that a wider range of wind speeds be provided to evaluate the performance of the optimized design more fully. 

9. The topic of the article is to improve the LCOE of FOWTs, but there seems to be a lack of detail on how LCOE is calculated or evaluated. It is recommended that more details on LCOE evaluation be provided. 

10. The conclusion section appears to be a straightforward restatement of the study results. It is recommended that more in-depth engineering insights and directions for future work be provided in the conclusion.

The basic opinion on "Control Co-Design optimization of floating offshore wind turbines with tuned liquid multi-column dampers" is as follows: The whole paper is logically rigorous, with a clear main line and a strong scientific basis. The topic is novel and of practical significance to the project, which is the main reason for the acceptance of the proposal. However, the paper still has the following problems that need to be explained and corrected:

1. The article clearly describes the background and importance of the study but does not discuss in detail the literature survey of related work. The authors should have provided a more comprehensive overview of the relevant literature so that the reader can understand the current state of the research.

1. while an overview of the multi-objective CCD optimization framework is provided, specific technical details and algorithm selection seem to be missing. To enhance transparency and reproducibility, it is recommended that more methodological details be provided.

1. In some places, the interpretation of the data seems to be less than intuitive, which may lead to reader confusion about some of the conclusions. A more in-depth explanation of key data and graphs is recommended.

1. The article mentions that the optimization process did not consider the structural integrity of the deck and heave plate. This is an important omission that may affect the effectiveness of the optimization. It is recommended that at least some preliminary structural analysis be performed to confirm the feasibility of the optimized design.

1. Although the optimization of the TLMCD is mentioned, there seems to be a lack of a detailed description of its specific operation principle and the selection of design parameters. It is suggested that more information on the design considerations of the TLMCD be provided.

1. The article mentions the optimization of the blade pitch controller but does not discuss other possible control strategies or methods in detail. Considering the importance of control strategies to FOWT performance, a more comprehensive control strategy discussion is recommended.

1. When listing the optimization variables, it is recommended that a detailed explanation be provided as to why these variables were selected and how they affect the system performance.

1. Comparisons of dynamic response appear to be based on specific wind speeds. It is recommended that a wider range of wind speeds be provided to evaluate the performance of the optimized design more fully.

1. The topic of the article is to improve the LCOE of FOWTs, but there seems to be a lack of detail on how LCOE is calculated or evaluated. It is recommended that more details on LCOE evaluation be provided.

1. The conclusion section appears to be a straightforward restatement of the study results. It is recommended that more in-depth engineering insights and directions for future work be provided in the conclusion.

This paper proposes a control of co-design optimization scheme for FOWT by considering the blade pitch conrol and TLMCD. The paper is well structured and the process is well developed. However, i would recommend the acceptance of the paper if they could address the following issues:

1. The effectiveness of the controller and TLMCD is presented for wind speed larger than rated wind speed. How is the situation for the wind speed is lower than the rated wind?

2. The repeated word damper is used in the abstract.

3. What is the feasibility if the wind and wave direction is different from the x-axis?

4. In the industry, how this TLMCD can be implemented on a real platform? 

5. For the platform optimization, the column diameter is a key parameter that can affect the total mass significantly. I recommend adding this parameter to the variables for platform optimization.

6. What is the additional cost for this TLMCDused for 10 MW wind turbine?

7.  Compared with the original design, additional TLMCD will change the COM and draft of the platform. Do you consider these differences when you set different models?