I express my sincere gratitude to the reviewer for acknowledging the quality of this article. The recommendation to provide additional clarification regarding Pietro Vesconte in the text is entirely valid, and I will certainly endeavour to include it in the revised version.

I will compose the official response to this review report in my final reply following the open discussion, which will occur after June 8 in this instance.

I greatly appreciate the reviewer's approach regarding the topic and evaluation of the subject matter. Due to the review report of this article being exceptionally comprehensive and meticulous, I have been engaged in formulating the response throughout this period.

I have prepared the document detailing my responses to each reviewer's critique, encompassing all six general comments from (a) to (f) and all 24 specific comments in the table. I must still examine the linguistic components and specifics, after which I will upload it as my final response subsequent to the open discussion a few days post-June 8.

At present, I can only state that I have addressed each criticism, defending the current hypotheses while presenting new arguments and evidence. The comments have proven beneficial, prompting me to develop revisions that will enhance the article's quality and further corroborate the hypotheses.

A detailed response to this review report that I promised to deliver in the prvious comment is now complete, and its PDF document is attached to this comment. 

Given that it originates from a colleague who has dedicated the past two decades to investigating the origins of portolan charts and whose doctoral dissertation served as my most influential model when I first began researching this subject, it is unsurprising that this is one of the most comprehensive and lengthy peer review reports I have received regarding my research output to date. For a variety of reasons, my response to the review report is particularly extensive.

The reviewer pointed out specific flaws in the initial draft of the scientific paper, including the absence of certain arguments or details or inadequate explanations. As a result, I tried to give the reviewer and the journal's editors as much detail as I could about my theories and viewpoints.

Furthermore, since the HGSS journal employs a public peer review model, all of these documents inevitably become (and continue to be) attached to the article as a thread of metadata. Consequently, I have endeavoured to provide a more comprehensive and transparent explanation to a broader audience.

Lastly, I purposefully wrote longer answers to some of the reviewer's criticisms and accompanied them with newly made tables and newly made figures. I plan to incorporate those elements into the revised version because they provide even more convincing evidence for the hypothesis that the spatial data underlying portolan charts originated in classical antiquity.

Tome Marelić