I have read the revised manuscript and the authors' responses to the reviewers. The authors have made substantial revisions and the reviewers
are for the most part satisfied. There remain two main issues (reviewer 1) which are closely related, and have to do with the interpretation of
the results.

There is no doubt that reviewer 1 sees the nudged storyline approach as a valuable one for studying extreme event attribution. The reviewer is, however, highlighting that different approaches giving slightly different messages could be meaningful, and that this is in fact a strength of combining approaches. The definition of a "class" of event could thus be seen to depend on how strongly an approach conditions on dynamics (Thompson et al. doi: 10.1002/wea.7779). In addition, for the nudged storyline approach, uncaptured dynamics may still be important (e.g., van Garderen et al., 2020).

A suggestion is that the authors keep the framing of their study as is (e.g., the question posed in L159), as it aligns with published studies such as Feser & Shepherd, but that they remain open to the points raised by reviewer 1 in their presentation of the results. The Thompson et al. report, which is very new, could be a useful additional reference. I don't feel that this will require lengthy text additions, but rather just adjustments to the current text, particularly in the introduction and conclusions/discussion sections, as well in certain statements in the results sections.

Finally, given that the study should appeal to a broad audience, the manuscript could benefit from a round of copyediting and proofreading to make it as clear and readable as possible. English language editing is no longer provided by EGU journals. Some examples for illustration:
- L28: "In contrast, non-heatwave events shaped by complex dynamical processes - in particular when associated with modification of the large-scale atmospheric circulation like windstorms..." - “like windstorms” relates to "non-heatwave events"? sentence needs to be restructured if so.
- L32-33: extra article "either a counterfactual or future warmer worlds"
- L33-35: "counterfactual" should be explained the first time the term is introduced (L33), not the second time (L35)
- Could section 4.3.1 be its own subsection (4.4)? I realize it pertains directly to 4.3, but it is also a wrap-up and contains its own figure, so I think it would be appropriate.

I would like to emphasize that all of us (both reviewers and myself) are very positive about this study, and feel it represents a valuable contribution to the literature. What I believe reviewer 1 is asking for is a more open and considered interpretation of the results that balances various viewpoints. I'd be happy to help - perhaps in consultation with reviewer 1 - if the authors would like clarifications on any of the points. I would offer reviewer 1 the chance to see the revised manuscript if they are able to provide feedback in a timely manner.

Thanks to the authors for submitting a revised manuscript. I appreciate the thorough consideration of the remaining comments in the response document. At this point, I believe there remain 2 open issues: a technical point on whether fitting the data to a GEV is necessary, and a conceptual point on how exactly to interpret results from the combined attribution method bringing together the nudged storyline and flow analogue approaches. There are nuanced arguments on both sides of the discussion. I don’t believe that either issue undermines the fundamental results presented in the manuscript. I would thus suggest publication subject to the following minor revisions/corrections, which pertain to 1) a request for clarification on some of the statistics performed, and 2) some small wording changes to make certain statements in the body of the manuscript consistent with revised text in the conclusions. I will classify this as technical corrections; if the authors have any objections to these corrections, they may contact me to discuss.

Interested readers may refer to the three rounds of public review for more a more in-depth discussion of these issues.

Line numbers refer to version 3 of the manuscript.
- L8-9 in the abstract: Replace “According to our study, …” with “Our results show that the 2018 heatwave, with an intensity of 2.2 °C and a return period of 1-in-277-years today, becomes a 6.6 °C event with a 1-in-26-year probability in a +4K world in the absence of other dynamical trends.”
- L122: “Each storyline represents a physically consistent, plausible scenario in which the event could have developed under an alternative thermodynamic background while holding the circulation fixed.”
- L210-212: Could the authors please add a sentence or two to comment on the quality of the GEV fit?
- L261-263: “Here, it indicates that the dynamical pathway leading to the 2018 heatwave with a mean intensity of 2.2 °C would have produced an event that was 6 days shorter and with a 0.5 °C mean intensity in the absence of human-induced global warming.”
- L378-379: I don’t think you need the sentence “The fact that the upper tail…” to make your point, and removing it would also eliminate what I believe is a point of contention with the reviewer. The information given in the following two sentences lays out very nicely what’s different about the approaches, and why this could lead to different answers, while still demonstrating the utility of combining the approaches.