This manuscript presents a high-resolution model study of tidal dynamics in the Ross Sea. The results show that steep topography strongly modifies the tidal flow, producing localized eddy-like structures and bottom-trapped waves. These features are associated with enhanced near-bottom energy and vertical shear, highlighting the importance of seabed geometry in redistribution of tidal energy. The study suggests that tides may play an important role in cross-slope exchange and shelfward heat transport.

Model validation is carried out against observational datasets and provides confidence in the model results. Overall, the manuscript is well written and presents interesting results; however, several aspects of the interpretation and presentation could be improved.

Main comments:

-              The manuscript would benefit from a dedicated data section describing the observational datasets used for model validation, including the mooring instrumentation, deployment period, and data processing.

-              The separation between Results and Discussion is not always clear. The Results section contains interpretive material, while the “Summary and Discussion” section is relatively brief and does not fully explore the physical implications of the results. The manuscript would benefit from either expanding the Discussion or combining the Results and Discussion into a single integrated section. Several important processes are described, but the underlying mechanisms and broader dynamical implications are not always clearly articulated.

Minor comments:

-              The Southern Ocean State Estimate version should be specified.

-              Please specify which version of the CATS tidal model was used (e.g. CATS2008_v2023).

-              Please specify which ERA5 atmospheric variables were used to force the model.

-              For figures showing along-isobath structure, please clarify orientation (east/west).

-              Please clarify what happens to the eddy-like structures during the transition between flood and ebb tides; do they persist, dissipate, or reverse with the changing flow?

-              Please ensure consistent capitalization of axis labels across figures.

-              Section 3.3 is rather long and would benefit from subheadings. There are also several repeated statements that could be streamlined.

Line by line comments:

Line 58: Should it be “previous works”?

Line 81: Please specify the SOSE version used.

Line 90: Please confirm the version of the CATS model used.

Line 93: Please specify which ERA5 variables were used for atmospheric forcing.

Line 96: Please clarify why the 2003–2004 period was selected, as it appears to coincide with mooring deployment timing.

Figure 1: Please consider reducing ice shelf transparency to improve readability, particularly for smaller features.

Please clarify the relevance of the 74.5°S reference (critical latitude) in the figure caption.

Line 122: Please justify the use of the deepest observational data point.

Line 129: Please clarify how the time series was filtered.

Figure 3: Please ensure consistent capitalization of axis titles.

Line 173: Please consider moving this material to the Results section.

Line 214: Is this behaviour expected? If so, please add a brief reasoning.

Line 216: Please refer to a figure.

Line 224-225: Please refer to a figure.

Line 233: Should it be Fig. 5c?

Figure 4: As above, consider capitalizing the first letter of axis titles.

Figure 5: Consider removing tidal ellipses, if they are not discussed in the text.

Line 248: Consider referring to a figure: where we can see that is reverses between flood and ebb tides (Fig. 6 a and b, respectively).

Line 267: Please correct the notation for specific heat capacity units (avoid dot product form).

Line 275-279: Consider elaborating on the mechanisms responsible for this behaviour and discuss its potential implications.

Figure 8: Consider consistently capitalizing axis labels.

Line 301: Please clarify that the Ross Sea also lies poleward of the diurnal critical latitude.

Line 304-305: The observed intensification is consistent with the presence of bottom-trapped waves, but it is not uniquely indicative of them. Consider softening this interpretation or discussing alternative explanations.

Line 314:-315 Please provide reasoning for why these thresholds are chosen.

Line 325-326: Please refer to a figure.

Line 328: Consider providing quantitative examples when comparing values.

Figure 9: Please consider capitalizing the first letter of axis titles.

Line 341-351: Please note that this paragraph repeats Lines 321–335 and should be revised/removed.

Line 353: Could the authors provide an example of how much lower the conversion rate is compared with other ocean regions?

Line 369: Please explain why confinement of energy to the bottom boundary is expected to enhance mixing, and discuss the underlying physical mechanism.

Line 402-403: Please elaborate on the implications of the reported "significant numerical uncertainty" for the interpretation of the results.

The manuscript describes the tidal energetics from a simulation of the Ross Sea. A study of this type is very much needed and there are several interesting conclusions that can help understand the role of tides in this area. The methods look robust in general, but there is no verification of the main results with observations. It was good to see the authors acknowledge the limitations of the simulations at the end of the manuscript. However, several further limitations need to be discussed.

Major comments:

1. The authors do not use any observations to check the results of the tidally-rectified flow. They do compare the model tides with moored observations in the methods, but they could have compared averages of the flows with the moored observations as well. There are also satellite altimetry products (for example Auger et al. (2022)) that could be compared to the output. Validating the results with observations would give the reader more confidence in the results.
2. Sensitivity of the results to stratification is not mentioned but should be included. The baroclinic structure of the tides can change substantially with changes in stratification (see for example Song and Chen (2020), Varlamov et al. (2015)). This can be added to the discussion of the vertical resolution.
3. The sensitivity of the heat flux to the resolution is mentioned with respect to underestimating the contribution from the mesoscale component. How the tidal component would change with increasing resolution is not discussed but needs consideration.
4. When decomposing the tidal modes into surface and bottom-trapped modes, Tanaka et al. (2023) assumes the sea surface height changes of the surface mode are an order of magnitude greater than those of the bottom-trapped mode. Comparing the examples from that study with these, it’s not clear that this is the case on the Ross Sea shelf, particularly in the troughs where the bottom-trapped mode coincides with the stratification due to dense water. How would the interpretation change if the two were coupled?

Minor comments:

1. Line 58: “Previous studies” would be more appropriate than “Precious works”.