Please address all comments of the reviewers in the revised manuscript too.
For instance, your response
"We do not think that we are able to answer this question, nor should we be, and that is why
we consider this model to be semi-empirical. A manner to answer this question would be to
repeat the inversion that has led to the input ice histories, using our solution as an
additional and strong constraint on present-day geoid rates. Such an effort is beyond the
scope of this paper"
to the comment of reviewer #3
"4- l88: Ice histories such as that of ANU and ICE-6G_C have been crafted such that when
combining all of their regional components, they are able to explain paleo RSL data
(especially through the eustatic sea level curve). By recombining regional components of
different models, is the solution still consistent with what we know about past RSL - and
therefore part of what validates these ice histories in the first place?"

should be also discussed in the revised manuscript. Please make sure response to ALL comments are discussed in the manuscript.