I have reviewed the revised manuscript and the conflicting referee reports. Several arguments along the following points were made:

Thermal shock and balloon experiment
* The balloon flight does not reproduce orbital thermal shock.
* The revised manuscript now states this explicitly.
* The linkage between the accelerated TS protocol and the balloon experiment remains weak, and the balloon data provide limited additional insight. Here the authors could make the point clearer.

Thermal shock protocol
* The use of satellite-derived temperature profiles is appropriate.
* The accelerated TS protocol is a simplified representation of orbital conditions and should be interpreted accordingly.

Efficiency and measurements
* Concerns regarding inappropriate use of AM0 appear to be based on a misunderstanding as absolute efficiencies and measurement limitations are now clarified.
* The in-flight efficiencies remain low and this remains a partially unresolved concern.

Material system
* The composition space explored is narrow and limits generality. The rationale for the specific additive choice could be more clearly articulated. What was the reason for the limitation?

Strain analysis
* The analysis is restricted to microstrain.
* Interfacial strain, likely relevant under thermal shock, is not addressed.
* Conclusions should remain confined to the reported measurements.

The manuscript has clear limitations in scope, framing, and mechanistic depth.However, no fundamental experimental or analytical errors are evident. The principal contribution is the proposal of a thermal shock testing framework rather than materials optimisation. This appears to be a useful study to the field since this is an important topic an there are only few studies in this direction due to the complexity of the experiments.
I believe acceptance should be contingent on clear editorial control of claims, or further revision to tighten scope and interpretation.