I reviewed the paper Egusphere-2023-2213:  Electron backscatter diffraction analysis unveils foraminiferal calcite microstructure and processes of diagenetic alteration by A. Procter et al., and I think that it is a very interesting and important topic, very well presented and well written.

I have only some minor comments to the manuscript before it can be accepted.

We thank the reviewer for their kind words and positive feedback on our manuscript.

Line 15: "data shows" it is correct but maybe it would be preferable to use it in its plural form, so data show.

This has now been changed to ‘data show’.

Line 29: instead of "planktic" foraminifera is better to use planktonic like it has been done in the rest of the paper.

We have replaced ‘planktic’ with ‘planktonic’.

Line 63: maybe substitute ";" with ", "after the quotes in brackets.

We have substituted the semi-colon for a comma here.

Lines 205-206: is there a reason why 'fanning' grains are associated with a lack of porosity or is it just an observation? Maybe elaborate further?

We have clarified that: “These fanning grains are observed here to be associated with a lack of porosity, growing into available space.”

Lines 215-216: rewrite or clarify the sentence "with greater spread in the points for the latter".

We have re-written this sentence to read: “The c-axis of crystals are most strongly clustered on the pole figures of glassy G. ruber, with strong alignment also present in frosty G. ruber, despite a greater spread in the orientation data of frosty G. ruber (Fig. 3i,j).”

Line 217: state what does the abbreviation IPF-Y stands for when you mention it for the first time.

We have added the explanation of the IPF-Y abbreviation into the methods section 2.4, where we describe these IPF-Y orientation maps. Lines 145-147 now read:

"IPF-Y maps (inverse pole figure colour maps showing crystallographic orientation in the Y direction) show the crystal orientation at each analysis spot, colour coded according to the relative orientation of the crystallographic axes in relation to the sample y-direction (see colour key in Figs. 3h, 4h)."

Figure 3 and 4: (g, h) the axes and the letters in the 3D diagram unit cells are not well visible, please make them more visible. (i,j) The plots of the selected grains on the pole plots represented in orange and yellow are difficult to see, maybe change color or make the symbols bigger?

We have edited the 3D diagrams to make the labels clearer. We have also increased the size of the selected grains on the pole plots and changed the colour.

Line 359: please explain better what do you mean with "further along this proposed diagenetic pathway".

We have changed this sentence to read: “The lack of magnesium banding and generally low Mg/Ca of the frosty M. crater specimen indicates that it has experienced a greater degree of diagenetic alteration.”

362: maybe substitute ";" with ":" after process, or reformulate the last part of the sentence.

The semi colon has been replaced with a colon.

Lines 409-414: maybe make a reference and clear connection with the last part of Fig. 5 (d and e)?

We have added in references to Figs. 5d and 5e within the text lines 409-414, and also referenced earlier figures (Figs 3e,g, and 4f,h,) which highlight this point well.

Appendix A- Frequency of twin boundaries: it is not possible to read the text on the graphs, maybe increase the quality of the figure?

The size and quality of the figure has been increased to make sure the text on the figures is readable.

Line 698: add a space after the reference of Putnis A., 2009

We have added a space after this reference.

The manuscript by Proctor et al. uses electron backscatter diffraction to investigate post-depositional processes that affect foraminiferal tests. This manuscript is extremely well-organized, well-structured, and scientifically important to everyone who use foraminiferal calcite in geochemical analyses. Below are a few comments:

We thank the reviewer for their kind words and enthusiasm for the work we have presented.

Throughout, either be consistent with use of ‘planktic’ or ‘planktonic’

Planktonic is now used exclusively throughout the manuscript.

Line 92: Spell out ‘Globigerinoides’ at the beginning of the sentence

This sentence now opens "Globigerinoides ruber".

Line 92-93: the pforams@mikrotax site lists ruber as evolving within 10.46-11.63 Ma (Chaisson and Pearson, 1997)

We have revised the date to 15.12 Ma to be consistent with Lamyman et al. (in prep), Phylogeny of Planktonic Foraminifera; however we note that the origin of G. ruber will be subject to revision as part of the Neogene and Quaternary planktonic foraminifera working group (https://www.mikrotax.org/pforams/pf-pages/NeogeneWorkingGroup.php)

Lamyman et al. use Stanley, Wetmore and Kennett (1988) for the dates for G. ruber. 

Stanley, K. Wetmore, L. and Kennett, J. P., 1988. Macroevolutionary differences between two major clades of Neogene planktonic foraminifera. Paleobiology,14, 235-249.

In the Methods section, it would be helpful to have a short paragraph about the lithology at each site, specifically within the interval from which specimens were taken for analyses.

The lithology of core material from each site has been added to Section 2.1 Sample material and preparation.

After the line: “Foraminifera were recovered from core material known to contain foraminifera specimens with differing degrees of preservation (Fig. 1; Table 1).” On line 95, we have added in the following:

The sediments from both Tanzanian cores, TDP 20, and GLOW 22 are rich in clay (Kroon et al., 2009), with the principle lithology of our section from TDP 20 being soft light olive grey clays with mottled yellowish orange sandy clay (Nicholas et al., 2006). Our core samples from sites U1335A and DSDP 527 are contrarily characterised by nanofossil ooze, with ~ 60% CaCO₃ wt% in our section from U1335A (Pälike et al., 2010) and our DSDP section characterised by nanofossil ooze and nanofossil chalk has a calcium carbonate content fluctuating around 90% (Moore et al., 1984).

Table 1: Would be helpful to also include a column with the water depth

Water depths have been added to Table 1.

Figures 5 and 6 are awesome!

We thank the reviewer for their very kind praise of Figures 5 and 6.