Several improvements to the validation process aiming at the reduction of the uncertainties were proposed and evaluated in this work. The major improvements were the measurement of the rotor thrust force excluding the tower top inertia loads, a significant improvement of 10 the wind field quality in the wave tank and the utilization of hybrid simulations based on the measured platform motions. These steps were applied to wave tank tests of a FOWT utilizing a single point mooring and the subsequent validation of the numerical panel method panMARE. The improvements allowed for a considerable decrease in the random and systematic uncertainty of

the model tests and made a valuable contribution to the distinction between cause and effect regarding the deviations between measurements and simulations.

This paper covers a lot of contents, so the introduction and analysis of each part is not very full. The research content of this paper is very meaningful, but it is hoped that the author can find the main expression content of the paper, accurately refine it, and condense it into a journal article with academic value. In addition, some suggestions are as follows:

1.The structure of the first and second chapters of the paper is inconsistent with the common articles. The first chapter is basically the author's statement, and the second chapter is the previous research work. In my opinion, the content of the first and second chapters should be properly integrated, and the research review of the second chapter should be used to support the views stated in the first chapter, so as to solve the sense of separation in the first two chapters of the paper.

2.In Chapter 2, so many previous works are introduced, all of which are supported by text. The authors should choose some important content to accompany the figure to illustrate.

3.The title of Chapter 3 does not summarize the content of Chapter 3 clearly, it is too concise.

4.Chapter 4: It is best to provide a layout diagram here.

5.As stated in the abstract: The major improvements: a significant improvement of the wind field quality in the wave tank. This section describes the advantages of this wind generating system, but I think the advantages should be reflected by comparing the quality of the wind generating system with that of other existing basin tests. Therefore, I think a table should be used to compare some important parameters to verify the advantages of this wind generating system.

6. Table1: What is the scale ratio of the test?  What scaling criteria do periods, wave heights, and wind speeds follow?

7. The conclusion is too long, requiring extensive cuts and rigorous generalizations

This work has a significant scientific contribution, as it deals with a very relevant issue: the testing of floating offshore wind turbines at wave basins. It brings attention to the main uncertainties associated with this type of experiments and proposes some potential improvements on the processes particularly oriented to use of the experimental data for computational tools validation. It also shows how these proposals have been tried out in a particular experiment, showing and analysing the results.

The paper theme is well explained and is supported by referenced previous works. The description of different testing methods is presented highlighting pros and cons. The motivation and objectives of this work are presented in a clear and justified way. The experiment performed is described with detail and the results are shown including a throughout analysis. The writing of the text is clear and well structured.

In general, it is a very well-presented work of great interest due to its subject matter and the results it teaches.

Getting into the different scientific issues addressed in the paper, I have the following comments and questions:

• The wind generator is one of the key aspects for obtaining accurate results on wave basin tests of scaled down floating offshore wind turbines. Obtaining an homogeneous air flow with a wind generator on a non-controlled open space is not straightforward. Description of the wind generator is well performed, and a velocity field measurement is presented at one section.
  • Have these measurements been performed using only a Prandtl probe?
  • How was the turbulence been measured? Any high frequency measuring instrument, as hot wire, has been used.
  • Has cross-flow (y, z directions) been measured?

• One of the main questions that arises to me is the way how the wind turbine rotor has been scaled. What I understand from the text is that the rotor is not a scaled down version of a real wind turbine rotor, but an existing model rotor designed for wind tunnel tests as described in reference Shultz 2022. Then, there are some questions about how the full-scale rotor is defined:
  • It is stated that the scaling factor for the wind turbine rotor is 150. Does this mean that the full-scale rotor is a direct geometrical scale-up of the model rotor?
  • It is not clear whether tip speed ratio is maintained between full-scale and experiments. It is stated that the tests are performed at a constant rotational speed and different constant wind speeds. May be stating what was this rotational wind speed at the experiments and the equivalent full-scale one would solve the question.
  • It is not clear to me either how the wind speed has been scaled down. From table 1, it seems that it has been scaled down by a factor of 2 (from 10 m/s to 5 m/s). But criterium for this value is not explained.
  • I don’t understand on Appendix A, the part of equation A4 that states that u_laero is determined by the ratio of aerodynamic and hydrodynamic scaling factors: u_laero = u_lhidro (l_aero / l_hydro) . May be this can be explained from the answer to previous question.

• The results show inaccuracy on the thrust measurements, specially at the case with smallest wave period. It is stated that inaccuracy would come from inertial and weight measurements, as derived from the waves only tests, but also the thrust measurement introduces some variability. Has this been more deeply analysed?

May be a thrust measurement of the rotor with the plataform fixed (to separate this from inertial and gravitational forces measurement) could be done. Also, if thrust measurements of the rotor were performed at wind tunnel at same conditions, that could be an interesting analysis, to see possible effects of the flow quality

• All the results show the surge, heave and pitch behavior of the model. Since it is a single point mooring platform, and therefore has yaw as free degree of freedom, I wonder if you have anlalysed the yaw behavior and its potential influences.

• The platform has an airfoil shaped passive yaw mechanism covering part of the tower. It is not clear whether it is completely laying on the wake of the wind generator.
  • Could you confirm about this point?
  • Although the influence should be small, have you been considering it on the full-scale computations?

Finally, as particular technical correction I would suggest to show in a figure the axis conventions used to derive the results in terms of motions directions (surge, heave, pitch) and forces directions as well.