While this work adquately mentions reference 10, it fails to discuss the findings of other key works completely on the same topic.
phenylselenenyl chloride was proposed as an additive to do similar effects as the MA-component here. The authors should compare and contrast their approaches with this previous work that was published in Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08161-x

Chen et al, which is the first paper that comes up in google regarding managing thermal strain in perovskites using thermal shock measurements.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.4c00988
This paper discusses the drawbacks of different microstrain techniques as well as performing 2500-5000 cycles of thermal shock at rapid cycling times.

The present work needs to be rewritten after carefully reading these work and putting their work into context. Many of the novelty claims would need to be modified and the authors should more carefully examine existing literature.

While the balloon flight is interesting, it does not undergo many thermal cycles. It is more similar to one slow cycle. The absolute efficiency should be shown rather than normalized condition. What is the thermal coefficient measured?

At this stage, I would argue that this paper is not complete enough for EES.

This paper reports a ballon flight with perovskite solar cells measured throughout the mission. I understand the complicated aspects of getting the opportunity to send perovskite solar cells on this balloon mission, however I am sorry that I feel the story presented in the paper does not go well with the application in a balloon flight.

Even after revision, there are still many weaknesses of this paper which severely detract from the quality of it.

I feel the authors still have not adequately represented the existing literature despite the comments in the first round of revision. There are more papers on thermal cycling and shock that were still not listed in the comparison table (only the 2 mentioned were listed) and even some of the major points of the 2 papers listed were incorrect.

The coupling of the thermal shock and the balloon experiment is weak, a thermal shock experiment simulates something like a satellite which undergoes thousands of light/dark cycles where the cell would be hot in the light and cold in the dark. Both reviewer 1 and 3 commented on this. The balloon flight is one single fully illuminated trip through the atmosphere where the temperature changes slowly due to the atmosphere. Please see comment under example 2 below as well.

There appear to be calculation and measurement mistakes important enough to conclude the work isn't careful.
Example 1 is that they were asked to list the actual efficiency and not just the normalized efficiency of the balloon flight, and first, it is now clear that the efficiency is very low (10% at start) and the efficiency appears to be calculated only assuming the AM0 spectrum and not spectrum that would have been experienced at each altitude. The 0km height should use the AM1.5 and the 35km should use the AM0 spectrum, but looks like they used the AM0 irradiance for all altitudes as stated in the figure caption (granted this underestimates the efficiency at the start of the flight). The spectrum at each altitude would have different total irradiance which needs to be measured and when calculating the efficiency, the total irradiance is the denominator. It appears as though AM0 was used for all calculations as listed in table S5

Example 2 is that it is stated that during the thermal shock, the samples were under vacuum in a bag. Convection is required for the cells to heat up and cool down during the thermal shock (since there is no light in this chamber, which would heat the solar cells in space). So if the samples are under vacuum, the cells could be insulated from the convection which causes the temperature changes. With the fast changes in temperature, there is no mention on how it was determined the solar cells actually tracked the thermal shock of the chamber temperature.

In the intro this statement is mentioned but not supported in any way
"This study investigated the real operating temperature profiles experienced by solar cells orbiting in low earth orbit, revealing rapid and extreme temperature transitions."

There is a sentence saying "Using FAPbI3 as a model system, we explored the impact of varying concentrations of MAPbBr3 (0–7%) on the perovskite film's structural stability under this accelerated TS."

"FAPbI3 perovskite was selected as the model system for this study due to its high power conversion efficiency, exceeding 27%31, which positions it as a promising candidate for space-based photovoltaics." However the cells in this work was so far away from 27%. I don't expect every solar cell to be near world record but starting efficiency was as low as 10%. In the first round of review, a reviewer mentioned the more common and more stable Cs additive to make FACsPbI3, but the authors stated they used up to 7% MAPbBr3 as an additive only. The justification of the material system is not very clear. This is a very narrow composition space with no stated hypothesis.

There can be the microstrain, but there can also be interfacial "macro" strain between the substrate and the solar cell layers. Why is only microstrain considered as a factor? On page 23 it is stated clearly as "These rapid transitions can impose thermal shock, particularly at interfaces between materials with different coefficients of thermal expansion. In perovskite solar cells, this can lead to cumulative damage, including morphological degradation, interfacial delamination, and reduced photovoltaic performance, making thermal resilience a vital metric for space reliability."
However this interfacial strain which seems more important in this case is not addressed in this paper. The thermal coefficients of the layers were not reported of discussed.

For these reasons, I am so sorry, I feel the paper should not be published.