See attachment

I would like to thank the authors for meticulously addressing all of my comments and for performing additional analyses. In particular, the new simulated case study (Box 1 and Fig 5) conveys nicely how this framework could be used or tested empirically. I believe that the manuscript is very strong now and consists of an exciting contribution. I just have a few minor suggestions to further improve the manuscript.

Line 127: Shouldn’t this be: “To explore these diverse scenarios, we first allow species pairs to INTERACT only through cooperation or competition, …”

Lines 149-150: This is not entirely clear. Which two states? Also, would it be more precise to call it a “stable state” instead of a “stationary state”? Make sure this terminology is consistent throughout the text.

Lines 197-199: You should mention that this is for competition strength held at zero and mutualistic strength varying.

Fig 1: This figure is much better now. I only have two minor suggestions. I know that this is a conceptual figure, but it would be helpful for the reader if plot axes are labeled. This would perhaps make the rationale of going from the 2-species to the N-species stability landscape more clear. Also, consider here changing “fraction of stationary simulations” for “fraction of simulations leading to a stable state”.

SI line 1250: Add figure number.