Dear referee 1: thank you very much for your review and the constructive comments you will find our reply inline just below your comments in italic font. DONE indicates that we included your corrections into the revised version of the manuscript as suggested.

Technical/minor comments:

L153: “server-currently”: replace the hyphen with a long dash, otherwise it can be confused with a compound word.

DONE

L170: I guess the acronym “wine” should be capitalized (at least the first letter). Please check.

DONE

L175 vs. L170: check1MIN vs. Check1min. Please, cHecK for consistency between capital letters.

DONE, checked all other occurences as well

L178: Use a different format for the wildcard characters yyyy in “imoyyyy.blv”, e.g., italics or bold.

DONE

L218: file-or: remove the hyphen.

DONE

L237: the provided F values have very likely been calculated from the vector data.

DONE

L269: Add a space between 5 and nT.

DONE, added a space for all occurences

Fig. 1: The fact that the data in step 2 has not changed with respect to the data in step 1 does not need to be supported by a figure. It is perfectly clear from the text. However, I would strongly recommend adding a diagram or flowchart representing IMBOT's tasks. I believe this will help the reader to gain an overview of IMBOT's usefulness in relation to the manual process, while also supporting and summarizing the description of the tasks carried out in section 4.

Agreed. We added a flowchart depicting the basic data checking procedure. We included that figure in section 4.2 as it shows the procedure for one-second data checking which is slightly different to one-minute. Basically all examples in the manuscript are related to one-second data checking. We also removed the previously contained figure 1 with the zero differences, as suggested by the referee.

L320: Remove the dot after 23.

DONE

L352: in-official or unofficial?

DONE

L358: Adept or adapt?

DONE

L366: … in case such meta-information was missing.

DONE

L373: … due to insufficient …

DONE

Fig. 6: I'm probably missing something, but there are 25 observatories in the x axis, while a total of 29 observatories provided data in 2022 according to Table 1. Is this because ABK, DED and HRN have been removed (as specified in L353)? But anyway, there is still one missing observatory(?).

DONE. Thanks for recognizing this issue, this was indeed a mistake. The correct plot contains the noiselevel of 28 observatories. We do not distinguish between level1 and level2 here. The only missing observatory is Deadhorse (DED) of which one-minute data has not been accepted and thus the term „definitive“ one-second data is not applicable. We added the new plot and a note in the figure caption.

Final remark for the Conclusions: Would the authors dare to give a figure for the amount of work that IMBOT saves human data checkers? This would help the reader to understand the importance of this tool. For example: “since its implementation, IMBOT has reduced the workload of data checkers by approximately x %”. Or: “It is estimated that the work carried out by IMBOT is equivalent to x hours of human labour”.

DONE

Dear referee 2: thank you very much for your review and the constructive comments you will find our reply inline with your comments. DONE indicates that we included your corrections into the revised version of the manuscript as suggested.

Major comments --------------

1. "final judgement of data quality or more sophisticated analysis... is subject of a final analysis by a human data checker" (Section 6): The manuscript could benefit from a deeper discussion on the boundaries of automation e.g., how are final decisions handled? How is the human referee alerted, and what tools are they provided with to validate these?

2. Given that the IMAGCDF format is still evolving, how adaptable is IMBOT to new versions? Will support be actively maintained, and is there a defined update pathway for future INTERMAGNET requirements?

3. The authors mention modularity as a strength ("IMBOT is written completely modular. Each checking technique is described and coded in an individual module. Thus, IMBOT can be simply extended or modified towards other tests and data sets"). Could this system (or a forked version) be adapted to other global geomagnetic networks such as MAGDAS? 

Reply to points 1-3: All question refer to the discussion part of the manuscript. We added specific sections to the discussion which provide information on all of these questions (see lines 410ff of the revised version). We also provide now the direct link to the GitHUB repository, so that readers can directly access the repository, development branches, issues. There it is also possible to fork the repository, if interested in adapting modules or methods for other projects.

Minor comments --------------

1. Terms such as 'step 1', 'step 2' etc. are used but a flow diagram or table summarising these steps would be aid clarity, especially for users outside INTERMAGNET.

DONE, see also our comments to referee 1. We added an overview graph depicting structure and flow of the data checking procedure.

2. The appendix gives helpful guidance on metadata structure. However, a sample filled-in meta_IMO.txt template would be useful for user guidance (maybe as a figure or in the appendix).

DONE. A couple of sample filled-in templates are provided in the GitHUB directory of IMBOT. A link to this examples is given in the appendix.

3. Page 18 Author contributions 'testing environemnts' -> 'testing environments'.

DONE

Dear referee 3: thank you very much for your review and the constructive comments you will find our reply inline with your comments. DONE indicates that we included your corrections into the revised version of the manuscript as suggested.

In general, please revise the consistency in the use of the terms step 1, step 2, and step 3, as they appear in three different forms throughout the manuscript.

I recommend including a figure or workflow diagram to illustrate the IMBOT work process and its associated tasks.

DONE, see reply to ref 1

L24: The term 1-min is used (as introduced in the abstract), but from this point onward the manuscript consistently uses one-minute. Please ensure consistency in terminology.

DONE

L106, L258, L259 and L269: Add a space in 5nT → 5 nT.

DONE, see also ref1

L257: Add a space in 0.3nT → 0.3 nT.

DONE, see also ref1

L267: Add a space in 3nT → 3 nT.

DONE, see also ref1