General Comments

This is a well-structured preprint that presents a detailed and thoughtful analysis of the role of synoptic circulations in shaping dry static energy (DSE) variability over a South Asian heatwave hotspot. I particularly appreciated Figures 8 and 9, which offer a clear and compelling visualisation of the circulation regimes linked to different phases of DSE evolution. These figures, together with the accompanying explanations, effectively translate complex dynamical interactions into an intuitive framework. The numbered summary of key findings is also well-executed and helps ground the reader in the main contributions of the study.

One area for improvement lies in the connection between the paper’s motivation and its core analysis. The introduction sets up an expectation that the study will explore links between circulation and the distribution of near-surface temperature, particularly the behavior in the tails. However, the main focus is on the daily tendency of lower-tropospheric DSE (δS), without explicitly returning to the temperature distribution itself. While δS is a justified and meaningful proxy, this disconnect could be addressed either by more explicitly linking δS back to the statistical behavior of near-surface temperature. Even if this is just elaborating on the different stages in a lifecycle of a DSE anomaly hinted at in Fig 8f and 9g.

Specific Comments

• Is there a reason why Fig 8f does not have a row for NL Growth (listed on line 431)?
• On Line 253, says similar results for both March and April. Maybe to cut down on figures could present entire analysis for just April  i.e. no Figure 2, or combined March and April as done in Figure 1.
• I think it would be clearer to explitly define what you mean by a quasi-linear vs non-linear contribution to dS. Maybe in Fig S1, you could colour the contributions based on which category they belong to.
• I think there the amount of plots in figure 4 could be reduced. Possibly just showing Figure 4e, but with switch x and y axis, and then have vertical lines or shading to highlight decile 1 and 10.
• I think the supplementary information would be easier to read if all the information required for a particular figure or was given in the figure caption, rather than giving the information first and then showing the figures.
• To make clear the results of Figure 8, It could be interesting to show a schematic of the growth of a given heatwave event, and the expected growth or decay regimes at different stages of its lifetime based on Fig 8f. Or someway to make Fig 8f and 9g clearer. I find the shading in Fig 8f and Fig 9f a bit confusing, maybe make Fig 9f blue  and darker blue means more negative S'.

Technical Corrections

• Red is negative in Figures 3a and 4a but positive in Figures 2b,  3b, 5a,b,c,d. I think it would make sense to have blue negative, grey neutral and red positive everywhere.
• In Figures 2,3 and 5 I think it may be clearer to just number the leaf nodes.
• Fig S7 - No axis labels
• Fig S9 - Might be interesting to show decile 1 and 10 in different colour, stacked on top of each other.
• I would be easier to read if the figures were mentioned in the text in the order that they are shown. At the moment, the first figure mentioned is Fig 2 and the first supplementary figure mentioned is Fig S5.
• Typos
  • Line 253 - preenting
  • Line 180 - Supplimentary
  • Line 313 - secondory