Correction 1: To relate thermodynamic modifications to aerosol--radiation interactions, vertical cross-sections of the smoke extinction coefficient (SEC) and smoke absorption coefficient (SAC) at 500 and 700 nm were analyzed together with CAPE and CIN diagnostics.
Explanation: The value “500 nm” is a typographical error and should be corrected to “550 nm”. The optical diagnostics (SEC and SAC) were consistently computed and analyzed at 550 nm, which is the standard reference wavelength for aerosol optical properties and is also consistent with the MERRA-2 AOD product used for comparison. Therefore, this correction ensures consistency between the text, the diagnostics, and the figures, and does not affect the scientific results or their interpretation.

Correction 2: During the fresh phase (13:00–18:00 UTC), both dry and wet SOD differ markedly from the MERRA-2 AOD. Across 13:00–17:00 UTC, AOD remains relatively stable (Mean AOD_0.9–1.7) whereas SOD increases sharply, especially in the wet configuration, rising from values near zero at 13:00 UTC to about 7 (Mean SOD_6–7) by 17:00 UTC.
Explanation: The original expression “(Mean AOD ~0.9–1.7)” has been revised to “(Mean AOD ranges from ~0.9 to ~1.7, with a peak of ~2.24 at 15:00 UTC)” to more accurately represent the variability present in the data.
While the initial formulation captured the general range, it omitted the documented peak value at 15:00 UTC, which is relevant for a complete and precise description of the temporal evolution of AOD during the fresh phase.
This change improves quantitative accuracy and consistency with Table 4, without altering the scientific interpretation or conclusions.

Correction 3: From 19:00 UTC onward, the plume enters the mixed phase (19:00–23:00 UTC), during which SOD intensifies dramatically, reaching Mean SOD values between 35 and 65, while AOD remains nearly constant around 0.8–0.9.
Explanation: The original wording “intensifies dramatically, reaching” has been revised to “increases from values below 10 in the fresh phase to” in order to provide a clearer and more quantitative description of the transition between the fresh and mixed plume phases. The revised phrasing explicitly links the magnitude of SOD in the mixed phase to its preceding values in the fresh phase, thereby improving continuity and making the scale change more transparent to the reader. This modification enhances clarity and quantitative consistency without altering the scientific interpretation.

Correction 4: Original sentence: The Mie-based SOD assumes spherical, monodisperse particles with fixed effective radius and density.
Revised sentence: The Mie-based SOD assumes spherical particles with a prescribed log-normal size distribution derived from bulk PM2.5 mass concentration, using fixed microphysical parameters.
Justification: The original sentence incorrectly described the optical calculation as assuming a monodisperse particle population. In reality, the Mie-based SOD is computed, as described in the methodology, by distributing the bulk PM2.5 mass concentration over a parameterized log-normal size distribution, using fixed microphysical parameters. This correction improves the physical accuracy of the methodological description and ensures consistency with the optical framework presented in the Methods section. It does not affect the calculations, results, or scientific interpretation, but only corrects an imprecise description of the approach.

Correction 5: Original sentence: “one order of magnitude larger than those obtained for BC,”
Revised sentence: “one order of magnitude larger than the near-zero slopes obtained for BC,”
Justification: The original sentence was ambiguous, as it did not clearly convey the magnitude of the regression slopes associated with BC. In the results, BC slopes are effectively close to zero and explicitly stating this improves the clarity and quantitative interpretation of the comparison. The revised wording therefore makes the contrast more precise by highlighting that the BC slopes are near zero, which is important for correctly interpreting the relative difference between OC and BC relationships. This change enhances clarity without modifying the results or their scientific interpretation.

Correction 6: Original sentence: “using a monodisperse, externally mixed Mie scheme”
Revised sentence: “using an externally mixed Mie scheme with a prescribed log-normal size distribution”
Justification: The original sentence incorrectly described the optical calculation as assuming a monodisperse particle population. In reality, as described in the methodology, the Mie-based optical properties are computed by distributing the bulk PM2.5 mass concentration over a prescribed log-normal size distribution, using fixed microphysical parameters within an externally mixed framework.
This correction improves the physical accuracy of the methodological description and ensures consistency with the optical framework presented in the Methods section. It does not affect the calculations, results, or scientific interpretation, but only corrects an imprecise description of the approach.

Correction 7: Original sentence: “this monodisperse PM2.5 aerosol representation tends”
Revised sentence: “this PM2.5-based aerosol representation using a prescribed log-normal size distribution tends”
Justification: The original sentence incorrectly referred to the aerosol representation as monodisperse. In reality, as described in the methodology, the PM2.5-based aerosol representation uses a prescribed log-normal size distribution to distribute the bulk mass over particle sizes, rather than assuming a single particle size. This correction improves the physical accuracy of the description and ensures consistency with the optical framework presented in the Methods section. It does not affect the calculations, results, or scientific interpretation, but only corrects an imprecise description of the aerosol representation.

Correction 8: Original sentence: “because their SOD or AOD values exceed the displayed range (≥ 4.0).”
Revised sentence: “because their SSA values fall outside the displayed range.”
Justification: The original caption incorrectly referred to SOD or AOD values and to a threshold of ≥ 4.0. However, the figure presents SSA–SSA comparisons, not SOD–AOD comparisons. Since SSA is the plotted variable in both axes, the caption should refer to SSA values instead. This correction resolves a minor inconsistency in the figure caption and ensures that the caption accurately describes the plotted quantities. It does not affect the figure, results, or scientific interpretation.

Correction 9: Original sentence: The OLS slopes are extremely small (≈0.06, −0.18, −0.17 depending on configuration), and the intercepts span large values (from about −12 to +15). These unphysical intercepts arise from the narrow dynamic range of SSA and should not be interpreted in mechanistic terms.
Revised sentence: The OLS slopes are large and variable (≈+14.1, −15.6, and −11.2 depending on configuration), and the intercepts span similarly large values (from about −12 to +15). These coefficients are not physically meaningful and primarily reflect the narrow dynamic range (i.e., low variance) of SSA combined with weak covariance between the datasets, rather than a physically meaningful relationship, and therefore should not be interpreted mechanistically.
Justification: The original sentence incorrectly reported the OLS slope values. The revised values correspond to those reported in Table 6 for the BC+OC SSA comparison and therefore correct a numerical inconsistency between the text and the table. This correction also improves the interpretation of the regression coefficients. Because SSA varies over a very narrow range and the covariance between the model and MERRA-2 fields is weak, the resulting OLS slopes and intercepts should not be interpreted as physically meaningful relationships. This revision therefore improves quantitative consistency and avoids misinterpretation, without changing the underlying results or conclusions.

Correction 10: Original sentence: Correlations increase to weak but positive values (Pearson r ≈ 0.35–0.47, Spearman ρ ≈ 0.32–0.34).
Revised sentence: Correlations remain weak and configuration-dependent (Pearson r = −0.35 to 0.47, Spearman ρ = −0.37 to 0.34).
Justification: The original sentence incorrectly described all correlations as positive. According to Table 6, the Baseline total-aerosol SSA comparison has negative correlation values (Pearson r = −0.35 and Spearman ρ = −0.37), while the Conservative and Lower Envelope configurations show positive correlations. The revised sentence therefore more accurately reflects the configuration-dependent behavior reported in Table 6. This correction improves consistency between the text and the table and avoids overstating the strength or sign of the correlations. It does not alter the results or conclusions, but corrects the interpretation of the reported statistical values.

Correction 11: In the SW panels, negative anomalies reflect strong attenuation of solar radiation within the plume core.
Original wording: “negative anomalies”
Revised wording: “positive differences”
Justification: The original wording was incorrect for two reasons. First, the values shown in the SW panels of Figure 16 are positive, so the correct sign is “positive”, not “negative”. Second, the term “anomalies” is not appropriate here because the plotted fields represent direct differences between two simulations (No Fire – Fire), rather than deviations from a climatological or temporal reference mean. The revised wording, “positive differences”, accurately describes both the sign and the nature of the plotted quantity. This correction resolves a minor wording and terminological inconsistency, ensures consistency with Figure 16 and the stated No Fire – Fire definition, and does not affect the results or their scientific interpretation.

Correction 12: In the LW panels, negative anomalies indicate increased
atmospheric longwave emission in smoke-affected regions.
Original term: “anomalies”
Revised term: “differences”
Justification: The term “anomalies” is not appropriate in this context, as it typically refers to deviations from a climatological mean or a defined temporal reference. In this case, the plotted fields represent direct differences between two simulations (No Fire – Fire), rather than anomalies relative to a baseline state.
The revised term “differences” more accurately describes the nature of the calculated fields and avoids potential misinterpretation. This correction improves terminological precision and does not affect the results or their interpretation.

Correction 13: At 16:00UTC, during the fresh and more concentrated
phase of the plume, SW anomalies reach values below −500Wm −2 within the plume core.
Original term: “anomalies”
Revised term: “differences”
Justification: The original term “anomalies” is not appropriate in this context, as it typically refers to deviations from a climatological mean or a defined temporal reference. In this case, the plotted fields represent direct differences between two simulations (No Fire – Fire), rather than anomalies relative to a baseline climatology or time-averaged state. The revised term “differences” more accurately describes the nature of the calculation and avoids potential misinterpretation. This change corrects a minor terminological imprecision and does not affect the results or their interpretation.

Correction 14: At 16:00UTC, during the fresh and more concentrated
phase of the plume, SW anomalies reach values below −500Wm −2 within the plume core.
TS15: Original text: “below −500 W m⁻²”
Revised text: “above 183 W m⁻²”
Justification: The original value “−500 W m⁻²” is incorrect and does not correspond to the data shown in Figure 16. The figure displays positive shortwave differences with maximum values exceeding 183 W m⁻², and no values near −500 W m⁻² are present. This discrepancy likely originated from an earlier version of the figure used during manuscript preparation and was not identified during revision. The correction aligns the text with the final version of Figure 16 and ensures consistency between the description and the plotted data.
This change does not affect the results or their interpretation, but resolves a numerical inconsistency in the text.

Correction 15: These large negative differences indicate that the fire simulation receives substantially less solar radiation at the surface due to strong aerosol extinction.
Original term: “negative”
Revised term: “positive”
Justification: The term “negative” is inconsistent with the values shown in the figure, where all plotted values are positive. The correct description is therefore “positive.”
This discrepancy likely arose during the editing/typesetting process and was not identified during proofreading of the previous version. The correction ensures consistency between the text and the figure and does not affect the results or their interpretation.

Correction 16: Conversely, at shorter wavelengths (e.g., 400nm), SEC and SAC strengthen markedly (SEC ≈3.3×10 −2 m −1 ; SAC ≈6×10 −3 m −1), remaining confined with in the lowest 500–800m, precisely where CIN anomalies are largest.
Original term: “anomalies”
Revised term: “differences”
Justification: The original term “anomalies” is not appropriate in this context, as it typically refers to deviations from a climatological mean or a defined temporal reference. In this case, the plotted fields represent direct differences between two simulations (No Fire – Fire), rather than anomalies relative to a baseline climatology or time-averaged state. The revised term “differences” more accurately describes the nature of the calculation and avoids potential misinterpretation. This change corrects a minor terminological imprecision and does not affect the results or their interpretation.

Correction 17: At 15:00UTC (Fig. 20), a compact near-surface smoke layer, characterised by strong extinction and absorption at 550nm, coincides with positive potential-temperature anomalies (θ 0 ≈ 1–1.5K) and reduced relative humidity (RH 0 <0) beneath the inversion.
Original term: “anomalies”
Revised term: “differences”
Justification: The original term “anomalies” is not appropriate in this context, as it typically refers to deviations from a climatological mean or a defined temporal reference. In this case, the plotted fields represent direct differences between two simulations (No Fire – Fire), rather than anomalies relative to a baseline climatology or time-averaged state. The revised term “differences” more accurately describes the nature of the calculation and avoids potential misinterpretation. This change corrects a minor terminological imprecision and does not affect the results or their interpretation.

Correction 18: The θ 0 anomalies strengthen along the plume axis, and the accompanying RH 0 dipole (dry below, moist above) becomes more pronounced.
Original term: “anomalies”
Revised term: “differences” 
Justification: The original term “anomalies” is not appropriate in this context, as it typically refers to deviations from a climatological mean or a defined temporal reference. In this case, the plotted fields represent direct differences between two simulations (No Fire – Fire), rather than anomalies relative to a baseline climatology or time-averaged state. The revised term “differences” more accurately describes the nature of the calculation and avoids potential misinterpretation. This change corrects a minor terminological imprecision and does not affect the results or their interpretation.

Correction 19: The co-location of FIRE–No Fire anomalies with regions of enhanced SEC and SAC further confirms that inversion modification is directly coupled to the plume’s wavelength-dependent radiative forcing.
Original term: “anomalies”
Revised term: “differences”
Justification: The original term “anomalies” is not appropriate in this context, as it typically refers to deviations from a climatological mean or a defined temporal reference. In this case, the plotted fields represent direct differences between two simulations (No Fire – Fire), rather than anomalies relative to a baseline climatology or time-averaged state. The revised term “differences” more accurately describes the nature of the calculation and avoids potential misinterpretation. This change corrects a minor terminological imprecision and does not affect the results or their interpretation.

Correction 20: Heating by dense smoke is particularly efficient at short wavelengths (400–550nm), reinforcing the thermodynamic anomalies at low levels and supporting persistent vertical redistribution of smoke.
Original term: “anomalies”
Revised term: “differences”
Justification: The original term “anomalies” is not appropriate in this context, as it typically refers to deviations from a climatological mean or a defined temporal reference. In this case, the plotted fields represent direct differences between two simulations (No Fire – Fire), rather than anomalies relative to a baseline climatology or time-averaged state. The revised term “differences” more accurately describes the nature of the calculation and avoids potential misinterpretation. This change corrects a minor terminological imprecision and does not affect the results or their interpretation.

Correction 21: Enhanced shortwave absorption across 400–700nm, together with localized longwave re-emission, generated radiative caps that inhibited nocturnal cooling and displaced CIN layers upward by approximately 100–200m.
Original term: “nocturnal cooling”
Revised wording: “inhibited surface cooling and stabilised the lower troposphere”
Justification: The original term “nocturnal cooling” is not appropriate in this context, as the processes described occur during the late afternoon/early evening period, prior to the establishment of fully nocturnal conditions. The revised wording more accurately reflects the physical mechanism involved, namely the reduction of surface radiative cooling due to aerosol–radiation interactions and the resulting stabilisation of the lower troposphere. This change improves the physical accuracy and temporal consistency of the description without affecting the results or their interpretation.

Correction 22: Despite these inherent differences, the simulations reproduce the main spatial organisation and timing of the observed plume, with the wet microphysical configuration providing the closest match, particularly during the mixed phase (19:00–20:00UTC), when hygroscopic growth, carbonaceous dominance, and stabilized plume geometry align most favourably. 
Original phrase: “timing of the observed plume”
Revised phrase: “timing of the MERRA-2 plume”
Justification: The original wording may lead to a misinterpretation, as MERRA-2 is a reanalysis product that combines model output with assimilated observations, rather than providing direct observational measurements of the plume. The revised phrasing clarifies that the timing refers specifically to the plume as represented in the MERRA-2 reanalysis dataset, ensuring terminological accuracy and consistency with the data source used in the study. This correction does not affect the results or their interpretation, but improves the precision of the description.

Correction 23: Original sentence: Diagnostic statistics (Tables S1–S3) confirm that upwind-based background subtraction systematically improves agreement, reducing biases and modestly increasing correlation.
Revised sentence: Diagnostic statistics (Tables S1–S3) confirm that upwind-based background subtraction modifies the agreement by reducing the regional AOD offset and modestly increasing correlation, while the remaining biases are still dominated by representativeness and plume-confinement effects.
Justification: The original sentence overstated the effect of the background subtraction by implying a systematic overall improvement in agreement. The diagnostics in Tables S1–S3 show that the upwind-based subtraction reduces the regional AOD offset and can modestly increase correlation, but substantial biases remain due to representativeness differences between BRAMS–SFIRE and MERRA-2 and due to plume-confinement effects. The revised sentence provides a more accurate and nuanced interpretation of the statistical results, distinguishing the effect of the background correction from the remaining structural sources of disagreement. This change improves consistency with Tables S1–S3 and does not alter the results or conclusions.
