Dear Dr. Hussain,
I am happy to see the results of the discussion phase, which included not only formal reviews, but also very helpful comments from two more scientists. All these comments are obviously very helpful for improving your manuscript, and your responses about them are positive.
Thus, I ask you to submit a revised version of the manuscript, highlighting the changes you made, and a document containing your response to all comments (including those from the two scientists). This document should mention how and where you changed your manuscript. Of course, this can and should be based on your responses in the open discussion. Some of your responses do not mention a consequence in the text. Of course, it is not necessary to introduce changes in each case, but I suggest that you re-consider if changes (in particular with respect to relating your work to publications from additional references) are appropriate. One item that I particularly noted was the relation to the SARA project, see https://sara.openquake.org/start .

Best regards,
Uwe Ulbrich

Dear Dr. Hussain and co-authors,
thank you again for your responses and the revised version. Based on the reviewers' comments and my own assessment of your responses, I request that you make some additional changes in order to come to the publication of your paper. While I appreciate that the reviewers’ recommendation for just “technical corrections”, I feel that there is still a potential issue in the vs30 values used, as pointed out by referee 2. Thus, following your next response and revision, I will either come to a decision myself, or have reviewer 2 have another look at this.

In detail, the vs30 map presented in Figure S4 is apparently showing a key dataset for your paper, but the origin is not clear. You assign the data source to Bonnefoy et al. (2009) in the caption, which cannot be correct according to reviewer 2, stating that Bonnefoy et al. (2009) was not deriving vs30 values but resonant frequencies from H/V values. In the text, you now assign the vs30 values used to a thesis by Pasten (Memoria para optar al grado de Magíster en Ciencias de la Ingeniería) which is apparently not accessible for readers of your manuscript. It is necessary that you clarify and describe the origin of the vs30 data unambiguously. If you took the data from Pasten’s work, you must at least include a paragraph describing how and where they were obtained (in your response, you mention 264 measurements, but the current Figure S4 apparently contains a much larger number of points), and in how far they can be considered reliable. I suggest that the respective figure is moved from the supplement to the main text.

As an additional change, I request in accordance with the referee 2 assessment that you replace the Figure 11 in the paper with the current figure S10, of course adapting the caption accordingly.

With respect to referee 2’s comment on the location of buildings you used, you explain the building exposure model in section 3.2 (with reference to figure S1), and mention the Joyner-Boore distance at page 8 line 32-33. You should, however, also mention explicitly that for the averaging of damage results into districts you apply weighting according to the spatial distribution of the number of buildings.
Best regards,
Uwe Ulbrich

Dear Dr. Hussain and co-authors,
thank you for providing the revisions requested! I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication in NHESS now. The paper will subsequently enter the production process.

With respect to the new references you give, there is at least the thesis of Humire Guarachi F.A. (please correct in your references) which can get a better link than the google drive link you currently provide. It can be found at https://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/2877 . Please check if there are other links that can be changed to more sustainable sources.

As you know, the final paper will be available for open access in the NHESS repository. I wish you good responses from the scientific community.

Best regards,
Uwe Ulbrich