Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this helpful and important comment. In response, we have revised the manuscript to clearly state the analytical nature of the study. More specifically, we have clarified that the manuscript does not report newly collected experimental data, but instead develops a comparative analytical framework based on literature-derived parameters, technical specifications, and scenario-based modeling of uncertainty, spatial coverage, and life-cycle cost. We also revised the Introduction and the limitations section to make this positioning explicit and consistent throughout the manuscript. This change can be found in Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 6.3 (Study Limitations and Applicability).

We appreciate the reviewer's valuable feedback on this important point. To address this concern, we have updated the manuscript to explicitly clarify that this is an analytical study. We have made it clear that the work does not present new experimental data but rather creates a comparative analytical framework using parameters from existing literature, technical specifications, and scenario-based modeling to examine uncertainty, spatial coverage, and life-cycle costs. The Introduction and limitations sections have been revised to ensure this analytical approach is stated clearly and consistently throughout the paper. These revisions appear in Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 6.3 (Study Limitations and Applicability).