
Dear Editor and Referee 1,

thank you very much for your Referee's report.

We considered all comments and made appropriate changes, see 
the new version of our manuscript. We also added and removed
some references. Our answers to the referee's comments follow.

With best regards,

Marian Karlický and Ján Rybák

---------------------------------------------------------------
Our answers to the Referee's comments:

Referee's comment:

Some of the observations need clarification. First, Section 2.1 describes the negative and
position frequency drifts, but it is not evident how to differentiate the two drifts in Figure 2.
Additional descriptions or indicators in Figure 2 would be helpful for the readers. Second,
the authors suggested that there are helical and semi-circular structures in Figures 6 and 7,
but these features are not evident from the figures. Additional descriptions or figures are
required to reveal these features. The authors did point out the figures in reference 24, but
I have no access to the reference.

Our answer:

To see better the positive and negative frequency drifts of type III bursts
we added a detail of the radio spectrum (now Fig.3 with better description), 
where you can see not only drifts of bursts, but also the bifurcation region,
where type III bursts start to drift to higher and lower frequencies.

As concerns Figures 6 and 7, we better described these features. 
We also improved description of the used method.

Unfortunately, the paper by Park et al. (2022) is covered by a commercial licence.
(https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022RvMPP...6...18P). We will ask the editor
to forward you the PDF of the paper.

Referee's comment:

The authors argued that the multi-periodicity indicates acceleration in the fragmented magnetic
reconnection (Line 106) and cited references 25 and 26 as support. First, references 25 and 26
describe the fragmentation of an elongated current sheet, which is more consistent with the
standard flare model. Whether these models can be used for the current sheet in the flux rope
is not sufficiently justified. Second, the authors argued that the magnetic flux rope becomes
unstable owing to the tearing mode instability (Line 114). What does this mean? The tearing
mode instability applies to the current sheet, not the flux rope. Are there any modeling
results showing the current sheet in the flux rope can be further fragmented to form secondary
flux ropes? Please clarify. Third, the authors think that the structure in Figure 7 is just the
product of the tearing mode instability in magnetic rope (Lin 118).
Additional evidence is required to demonstrate this point.

Our answer:

This part in Discussion and conclusions is fully rewritten and further
references were added and some were removed, see Discussion and
conclusions in the new version of our manuscript.  

Referee's comment:

The authors suggested a deviation from the standard flare model. However, all the observations
shown are from the early phase of this flare. As stated by the author, the maximum GOES X-ray
flux was at 13:55 UT (Line 47), which is beyond what is shown in Figure 1. Therefore, it needs
to be clarified how important energy release is in this phase compared to the main impulsive
phase of this flare.

Our answer:

Yes, it is a long lasting event with GOES X-ray maximum at 13:55 UT.
But, our statement about a deviation from the standard flare model 
does not mean that the process according to standard model does not work.
It only means that in the standard flare model energy processes in the rising
magnetic rope are not considered.  

The question, how important energy release is in this phase 
compared to the main impulsive phase of this flare, is interesting.
But, to answer this question is difficult, because in this flare 
energy processes in the rising magnetic rope and in the current sheet
as in the standard flare model can work for some 
time simultaneously. Namely, in the present flare at times after 13:32 UT 
there is no further and main impulsive phase.   
In radio waves in the 800-5000 MHz range at times
after the maximum at about 13:30 UT  (see Fig.1) we observed only 
radio continuum with slowly decreasing  radio flux.  
Hard X-ray FERMI fluxes in the 24-101 keV range after 13:32 UT 
show similar  decrease as in the radio till the end of the FERMI 
observation at 13:42 UT.  
 
In the new version of our manuscript, in Discussion and conclusions we 
added some explanation. 

Minor:

Referee's comment:

Line 28: frquency -> frequency

Our answer:

It was done.

Finally, we also improved English.
