We sincerely thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. In response, we have revised the manuscript to clarify the origin and interpretation of the uncertainty values assigned to fixed stations. More specifically, we explained that these percentage ranges are analytical estimates derived from the literature and from reference monitoring practices, rather than locally measured uncertainty values. We also reformulated the text to distinguish more clearly between validated values reported in the literature and assumptions introduced in the proposed framework. This change can be found in Section 4.1.1 (Fixed Stations).

We appreciate the reviewer's valuable feedback on this point. To address their concern, we have updated the manuscript to better explain where the uncertainty values for fixed stations come from and how they should be understood. Specifically, we have clarified that these percentage ranges represent analytical estimates based on published literature and standard monitoring practices, not uncertainty measurements taken at local sites. We have also rewritten portions of the text to create a clearer distinction between established values from published research and assumptions that we incorporated into our proposed framework. These revisions appear in Section 4.1.1 (Fixed Stations).