Thank-you for your revisions. I think these have taken good account of the referees’ comments but below are some “editorial” comments of my own, mainly for clarity and some simplification of the English. Line numbers refer to your revised “clean” manuscript.

Firstly a question. You are discussing winter but refer to the south-west “monsoon”. Is “monsoon” the correct word in winter as well as summer, or should it be “wind”? [North-east monsoon is winter is OK, I think].

(Abstract)
Line 30. Omit “, extending in the region”
Lines 34-35. “fluctuations . . alongshore . . are important for . . cross-shore transports.” This reads strangely.

(1. Introduction)
Line 51. Better “. . its weak mean surface velocity . .”
Lines 60-61. Better “. . fluctuations still lack study; the fluctuations . . may be complicated”
Line 67. Intermittency does not have an amplitude: “. . the variations of the TWC . . have an amplitude . .”
Line 68. You might want to change this too: “. . the variations of the TWC . . cause a . .”
Line 86. “mainly occur close to those specific isobaths. . .”
Lines 93-94. “. .indicating a strong synoptic fluctuation . .” [“stronger” implies a comparison which you do not make]
Lines 124-125. Better “. . investigate wintertime TWC synoptic fluctuations and their mechanisms. The rest . .”

(2.1)
Line 160. “. . velocity set to zero. . .”
Line 161. “. . and at the lateral boundaries a sponge layer”
Line 163. Delete “of”

(2.2)
Line 204. “direction as from . .”
Lines 205-206. “. . cross-shore direction is from northwest . .(128°), normal to the isobaths. The alongshore . .”
Lines 229-230. “. . i.e. that the mean alongshore component . . than the mean cross-shore component, the magnitude . .” Maybe the last part of this sentence “the magnitude . . alongshore fluctuations” should move to the beginning of the sentence.

(2.4)
Line 269. “comparably” -> “comparatively”
Equation (5) and line 273. Velocity at the bottom might better be vector “Vb”.

(3.1).
Line 285. Can omit “a horizontal structure with”
Line 297. Delete final “a”
Lines 298 to 301. I am confused by the directions here. If “offshore” (line 299) is to the south-east then the vertical shear would be northeastward (not as stated on line 299), which does result in a southwestward flow component increasing downwards. Whether this weakens the northeastward TWC depends on assumptions about where in depth the flow is unchanged. This also needs better explanation to justify “effects of baroclinicity” in line 303.
Line 304. “. . than on the . .”

(3.2)
Lines 334-335. “. . had a strong cross-shore component which means . .”
Lines 337-338. This implies that the ZMCC might be very wide, out to as much as 100m depth. This is a surprise to the reader because 30-100m depth was supposed to be the region for the TWC inshore branch.
Line 339. “episodically” means the TWC inshore branch is sometimes present and sometimes absent. For this, the fluctuations need to be more than “significant”; they sometimes need to be larger than the mean.
Lines 347-348. Better “. . Richardson et al., 2013), i.e. where the Richardson number equals the critical value 0.25 in this paper . .”
Line 353. Omit “Hence”. [Correlation does not show what causes what. The rest of the sentence is OK because wind and cooling are forcings.]
Line 359. “account for 54% . . (Fig. 9), associated . .” [“which” can only refer to the object immediately before].
Line 365. Omit “great”.
Lines 369-372. There is some repetition here.
Line 374. “great” -> “larger”.
Line 390. “would then replace the . .”
Line 391. “Feb. 14-18”? This sentence is not very convincing. What about the deepening on 7-10 February?

(4 Discussion)
Line 443. Omit first “The”. “winters” – please state here if this is December – March or January – February.
Line 446. “. . were present in all winters from 2009 to 2013.”
Line 452. “. . manifested by two . .” [delete “with”]

(4.2)
Line 538. Do you mean “exchange” or just that water between the 30 and 100m isobaths may be either ZMCC or TWC water.
Lines 543-544. “. . considered, not short-term . .” [Omit “in the relation . . and no”]
Lines 558-559. “(Fig. 5a). Thus the offshore transports . .”

(5 Conclusions)
Line 584. “. . was nearly balanced . .”

Figures; generally it is better have units named on colour scales.
Figure 1 caption (lines 779, 875) “derived from the GDEM . .”
Figure 2 caption (lines 788, 884) “lines (right) show . .”
Figure 5 caption (lines 807, 906) “ECS, shown by colour. Sections ..”
Figure 7 caption. Explain black arrows. Lines 818, 919: “. . the branches’ representative ..”
Figure 8 caption (lines 821, 923) “. . currents (m/s, shown by colour scale) for . .”
Figure 9 caption (lines 827, 930) “. . (f) EOF2 cross-shore component (all shown by colour scale). The 30,” Explain black arrows.
Figure 10 caption (lines 831, 935) “along” -> “across” or “at” (twice).
Figure 12 caption (lines 841, 947) “. . Eq. (5) (shown by the colour scale; units: . .”
Figure 14 caption (lines 850, 959). What do the black arrows represent on the EOF plots?
Figure 15 caption (lines 858, 968). This is confusing. If P1 varies in time it could be anywhere and therefore useless.

Thank-you for your revisions. I have found just a few places for “technical correction” to make the meaning clear. Line numbers here are as in the “clean” version of your latest manuscript.

Line 26. Better to omit “the” before “geostrophic”.

Lines 89-90. “negative density anomalies” (line 89) does not seem to agree with “less low-density water was transported to . .” (line 90).

Line 124. “wintertime TWC synoptic . .” (I think you intended this anyway).

Lines 296-297. Better “. . resulting in an upward-increasing northeastward flow. The northeasterly . .”

Line 299-300. Better “. . indicates weaker baroclinicity or stronger wind . .”

Line 333. Better “. . magnitude that was sometimes larger . .”

Line 336. “outside of the 100 m isobath”. Do you mean “out to the 100 m isobath”?
Line 337. I do not understand “low temperature”. The figures do not show temperature. You could omit it?

Figure 7 and caption (line 921). Current is a vector and its standard deviation has two components which can be represented by an ellipse but not fully by an arrow. Are the black arrows perhaps the ellipse (semi-) major axis?

Figure 13 and caption (lines 960, 961). The main text line 430 refers to “northwestward” Coriolis force and seems correct but this is not the “alongshore” direction stated in the figure caption.