Please, find my comments attached.

This is a very well documented study, which is of value to the community and of particular practical relevance. 



My only comments refer to minor clarifications, as follows:

- Figure 1 is necessary, but somehow overly simplified. Consider enriching it to fully account for the procedure and the parameters/variables involved in the simulation.

- In order to carry out a parametric analysis, the study has to be framed within a very specific context.

It would be good to summarize in one position all of the simplifying assumptions made and how these may impact generalization of the outcomes (e.g. only blade flapwise and tower base fore-aft load channels considered - would considerations exist for further quantities? what is the effect of using FORM?).

- Moreover, how does this choice of a specific model (e DTU 10MW is an offshore wind turbine from IEC standard class 1A, IEC 61400-1, 2019) impact the generalization of results to further typical designs?

- How is the negligence of the start-up or shutdown events expected to impact the overall computation. Is a separate study dedicated to these short-term by high impact effects perhaps meaningful on this issue in the future?

- It is appreciated that further simulations are executed for sanity, e.g. " We re-performed the study for a lower reference turbulence intensity more suitable for offshore cases (0.1) and the trends were the same in terms of DEL distribution biases". However, these should be reported (e.g. in an Appendix). 

- For ensuring transparency and contributing toward open science, it would be meaningful (and highly valuable) for the authoring team to additionally publish the generated dataset and making it openly available.