Dear authors,

Thank you for tour responses to all comments and for the new version added in supplement in the discussion.

I have seen that you’ve answer to the remarks of reviewers and I have a look on your new version. Your paper appears nearly ready for publication. However I have some little remarks that have to be taken into account for corrections in a new version before publication. These are only details which may be quickly corrected.

1- Regarding to the comment about the dates of the base of the series, I would like that you explain more. I understand that these old dates have been removed because they may be related to reworked material. Nevertheless, first I would like to see the number of ages removed clearly noted in the text (I think it is three?) and the mention of their values. I think that the fig 4 has to be linked to this explanation paragraph to show to the reader where theese removed ages are. This implies for you to have a look on the citation of figure 3 and 4 as they will be probably inverted. In addition could you please indicate in the table 2 the removed ages by a star or anything else? Secondly could you justify more than with one sentence why you consider that all three ages are wrong. Two of them have been performed on Elphidium and the third (670-673 cm) on benthic foraminifers without any species mentioned. I think that your explanation about the reworked processes have to be already developed here and not only in the discussion and the reader will better understand why you have rejected these dates in this part of the manuscript.

2- Please enlarge the characters on your figures. They are definitively too little and remain unreadable at 100%. The figure captions are generally too short. Complete the captions is necessary because some feature are not explained in the legends (see some examples below).

a. The black rectangles in fig 5, 6, 8 and 9 are not explained
b. The different grey bands in the same figures, the hatching bands on the figure 8 are not explained
c. You complete the caption of figure 8 but what you mentioned is not indicated on the figure. Events 2.8 and LIA are not indicated there. And please mark that cold relapses are the black rectangles.
d. Probably if all the figure are proposed in portrait format it will be better.

Minor remarks
- Have a look on the order of the references. I think that there are some errors (see for example in Magny citations order)
- Please add a reference in page 3 line 82 for climate or pace the reference at the end of the sentence. Did the authors cited point the link between changes in sediment fluxes and climate?

Waiting after looking a version including my last remarks.

Best regards

Nathalie Combourieu-Nebout