This is an important and timely study that provides a valuable quantitative analysis of internal tide (IT) incoherence. The theoretical framework is robust and the results are significant for the field. The following suggestions are intended to further strengthen the manuscript's clarity and impact.

Major comments

• Expand on Physical Interpretation and Regional Differences. 
• The paper excellently identifies advection by the mean flow as the primary driver of decoherence. The discussion would be more powerful if it delved deeper into the physical reasons (line no. 232-233, 318-320) “why” this advection leads to a loss of phase relationship with the astronomical forcing. 
• Furthermore, please expand the comparison of the three subdomains (Gulf Stream, Azores, Northern Europe). Explaining how the specific dynamics of each region (e.g., strength of jets, eddy activity) lead to the observed differences in coherence loss would significantly enhance the scientific narrative. (Line no. 308-310) 
• Are the time-periods and areas analyzed in this manuscript representative of the broader North Atlantic? 
• Clarify Methodological Choices and Scope. The study's conclusions rely on key methodological choices that should be more thoroughly justified to ensure the results are robust and reproducible.
• Please state and justify the number of vertical modes used /resolved in the analysis. The paper notes that truncation error is negligible for modes below 5, but the total number used isn't specified. (Line no. 185)
• The choice of a one-month window to separate coherent and incoherent tides is critical. The authors rightly note this is to avoid issues with a time-varying stratification basis, but a more detailed discussion of how a shorter or longer window might affect the results would be beneficial. (Line no. 308-310)
• Briefly explain the rationale for the filter choices, such as the 2-day low-pass filter, to help readers understand their impact on the separation of the IT field and the mesoscale flow. (Line no. 188)
• Strengthen the Link to Observations and Applications. The work is highly relevant to satellite altimetry, especially the SWOT mission. The paper would have greater impact if you explicitly discuss how these model findings can guide the interpretation or processing of real-world observational data. A discussion on how this analysis could improve the detection of incoherent internal tides in global SWOT data would be really useful. 
• Future Directions. Suggest concrete next steps. For example, could this framework be applied to more regions, longer datasets, or models with different resolutions? What are the limitations/challenges if this work has to extended beyond the regions discussed here? 
  
   

Minor comments

•Figure Clarity. The interaction matrices are very informative, but their clarity could be improved. Please ensure the captions for Figures 3 and 4 explicitly define the sign convention to make them more immediately understandable.

This study investigates the transfer of energy between coherent and incoherent components of internal tides in the North Atlantic Ocean using high-resolution numerical simulations. The focus is on the loss of coherence of internal tides resulting from interactions with mesoscale background flows. While, the results enhance our understanding of internal tides in the study area, some detailed information is missing.

• Section 2.1: More information should be provided regarding the model setup. How long was the model run, and what is the spin-up time? Why this model was selected?
• Model validation is an important part of the study. Please summarize the results from the referenced studies instead of expecting the reader to explore those papers independently.
• Line 63: Explain “partial steps”
• Line 74: Why were these four months specifically chosen?
• Line 75: What criteria were used to select these regions? Additionally, could you summarize the findings from Ba24 that influenced the choice of these regions?
• Line 125: Please explain the rationale behind the assumption that the coherent and incoherent components are orthogonal.
• Section 3.4: As Table 1 contains important information, please elaborate on it in this section. Discuss the physical factors in these regions that may be influencing the results. Additionally, mention if others have observed similar outcomes.