|GTeam have generally responded well to the latest round of reviews and improved the manuscript.|
I will defer to Reviewer 1 for how well GTeam addressed his/her concerns regarding the :arch effect" and the modified wording of the extinction correction. The changes seemed adequate to me.
There is one answer GTeam gave (Answer 10) that I have a concern with. I had made the point that the OMPS-LP extinctions may have a low bias and asked them to consider discussing that. In their Answer 10 (and the textual revision made) GTeam presented two perplexing points. One is that they refer to Taha et a; (2021) and version 2.0 of the OMPS-LP aerosol version. But that is irrelevant for this paper because they use v1.5, which they acknowledge may have extinction underestimates for the densest Raikoke plume elements. Taha et al. (2021) is not cited nor discussed in this manuscript. The second perplexing part of their answer is that the CCC in question is an interesting case because of its composition being a blend of gaseous SO2 and sulfate particles. But this is not peculiar to the CCC; much of the plume was a combination of SO2 and sulfates. Moreover, OMPS-LP scattering is only sensitive to particles. So introducing the SO2 element in their response and the manuscript, in the discussion of extinction bias, has no apparent merit. Hence I would suggest they revise their newly added sentence to remove the reference to SO2, and limit it to a statement about the possible low bias in v1.5 extinctions where the plume is particularly concentrated.