In this manuscript, the authors provide a detailed description for a proposed study of the association between between auditory brainstem response (taken from newborn hearing screening reports) and sudden infant death syndrome, using covariates from birth certificates. The study design as outlined is well written, but there are a few issues for the authors to consider. A larger issue is that the manuscript ends without and data presentation, findings, or conclusion.
The first issue is that ABR data represent only a portion of the newborn hearing screens done in Florida. As the authors note, their sources (Intelligent Hearing Systems and Pediatrix) have approximately 150000 cases drawn from Florida births in 2009-2021. This is 13 years of data - but there are approximately 200000 births per year, so at best this would represent 5-10 percent of live births at most. This raises an issue concerning generalizability.

If the sample is drawn from specific hospitals using the ABR services for which data are available, the authors could demonstrate that these data are more widely generalizable.

Additionally, while NHBS data have been linked to birth certificates, its unclear if the ABR data can easily be as well. If the authors have prior experience with this, they should provide a reference and the expected linkage rate in the paragraph describing the secondary dataset linkage.
Presuming the total sample is 150,000 births, there may be too few SIDS cases to provide stable estimates. From Florida CHARTS the number of SIDS deaths has ranged from 46-70 per year during the years 2009-2021.
There are some additional issues. Which infants are most likely to have an ABR? Are they higher risk, or is the availability of ABR data solely due to which hospital they were born at or cared for?
Also, the SIDS diagnosis has been a changing entity over the years, and it is unclear if all medical examiners across the state make the diagnosis in the same way. The authors may wish to expand their net to include all deaths classified as Sudden Unexpected Infant Death (SUID), which includes SIDS and avoids some of the ambiguities of nosology.
Finally, in thinking about covariates from the birth certificate, the authors should consider how to use birth weight and gestational age jointly in their modelling, parity, plurality, adequacy of prenatal care rather then number of prenatal visits, and not use the variable for alcohol consumption which is widely known to provide unreliable and poorly valid data.

The authors have clarified most of the qiestions raised in the previous review. How cases are identified as SIDS remains a concern.

Do the authors have access only to the underlying cause of death, or are multiple cause data also available? These should be obtainable from FDoH, and might help in clarifying the chain of events leading to death.

Also, as noted, there have been changes in cause of death classification around unexpected infant death in recent years, and the authors should ensure that their SIDS case definition is robust over time.