The article holds significance primarily in shedding light on the lithic behavior of Neanderthals concerning non-flint raw materials.

While the manuscript is well-crafted, certain enhancements could facilitate better comprehension, and additional details are necessary to evaluate the technological analysis effectively:

-Introduction: It would be beneficial to specify the dating method along with its associated error margin. Furthermore, incorporating data regarding paleoenvironmental reconstruction would aid in interpreting both the results and the technological analysis more cogently.

-Methodology: Although the adopted methodology is clearly delineated, a more precise description of the studied materials is warranted. A clear enumeration of the number of studied implements is essential for interpreting the percentages cited in the results section. Additionally, the rationale behind segregating cores from flakes, particularly in the context of analyzing reduction sequences, requires elucidation. The conflation of knapping methods and techniques in lines 7-13 suggests a need for a slight reorganization of the text.

- Results: Providing a percentage breakdown of the non-quartz raw materials utilized would add depth to the findings. In Figure 3's legend, substituting the code for the complete names of raw materials would enhance accessibility for readers less familiar with the site. Considering that the study hinges on various types of quartz, furnishing descriptions and evaluations of their knapping aptitude would be insightful.

Figures 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12 lack clarity and fail to convey useful data. Replacing them with a more comprehensive statistical analysis based on volumes and technological categories would be advantageous.

The significance of reduction sequences (Levallois, discoid, etc.) warrants further elaboration in terms of the number of implements, morphology of cores, and technological behaviour. Additionally, the criteria employed for identifying the bipolar technique on anvil should be explicitly articulated due to the inherent challenges associated with its recognition.

- Discussion: While the discussion raises intriguing points, its organization lacks clarity. Different facets appear somewhat amalgamated, necessitating a more structured diachronic perspective, particularly concerning methods, techniques, and raw materials.

The title and initial portion of the text allude to a contribution towards reconstructing the site formation processes. However, this aspect seems tangential to the results and discussion. Consequently, revising the title and introduction to align more closely with the actual content or incorporating relevant data pertaining to the site's formation would enhance coherence.

Title and abstract

-Does the title clearly reflect the content of the article? [X] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don't know
-Does the abstract present the main findings of the study? [X] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

Introduction

-Are the research questions/hypotheses/predictions clearly presented? [ ] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [X] I don’t know.

After a general dissertation about lithic technology, the introduction focuses on the presentation of the archaeological site and sequence, as well as the chronological context. The Research questions are not clearly stated in this section. The Introduction should include them and eventually separate the archaeological site description in another subsection (i.e. 1.2. Archaeological site). 

-Does the introduction build on relevant research in the field? [ ] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [X] I don’t know.

The data obtained here is quite relevant for the understanding of a period not so well known in the Foz Côa valley, and, extensively, the inland Iberia: the final Middle Paleolithic. They provide a new approach to understanding the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Foz Côa Valley from a technological point of view. However, the background of the introduction section is quite general and not clearly related to the topic of the paper. 

For the background, I would also recommend some references (and references therein) regarding postdepositional processes on quartz lithic assemblages: 

Driscoll, K., Alcaina, J., Égüez, N., Mangado, X., Fullola, J.-M., & Tejero, J.-M. (2016). Trampled under foot: A quartz and chert human trampling experiment at the Cova del Parco rock shelter, Spain. Quaternary International, 424, 130-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.054

Venditti, F., Tirillò, J., & Garcea, E. A. A. (2016). Identification and evaluation of post-depositional mechanical traces on quartz assemblages: An experimental investigation. Quaternary International, 424, 143-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.046

Materials and methods

- Are the methods and analyses sufficiently detailed to allow replication by other researchers? [X] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know
-Are the methods and statistical analyses appropriate and well described? [X] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

Results

- In the case of negative results, is there a statistical power analysis (or an adequate Bayesian analysis or equivalence testing)? [X] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know. 
- Are the results described and interpreted correctly? [ ] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [X] I don’t know.

The description of the result is correct but incomplete. I would suggest: a) enumerate and include clear references to the different groups described in the text (ie. Group I; Group-II...). That is, in each paragraph clearly specify which groups (I-V) are described; b) Remark / label those groups in the black boxes created in Figure 3; c) include some quantitative data in order to strengthen the qualitative assertions made in the text. I would suggest adding a table with the number and percentage of the diagnostic cores and/or flaking products related to each knapping method cited (Levallois, discoidal, bipolar on anvil...) and clustered following the groups identified and described in the text. 

The available figures and graphics are correct and sufficient, but the legends and labels must be made in a larger font in order to increase their readability. For instance, in Figure 1 the absolute values of the dates are not visible (increase contrast with background); The position of Cardina I and II is not shown in the figure; the North arrow is missing... 

In Figure 2, the table should be edited.

In Figure 3, the labels are too small. The black boxes should be labeled with the corresponding group (Group I...), and the legend with the raw material types could add an identification for the most relevant raw materials cited in the text (ie. J18, heated quartz; K2, quartzite; J13, rock crystal...), or at least, to those varieties not related to quartz.

Figure call must specify to what item they refer to. For instance, on page 7, line 17 (Fig.6). Do refer to Figure 6.3?

Discussion

-Have the authors appropriately emphasized the strengths and limitations of their study/theory/methods/argument? [ ] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [X] I don’t know.

The paper is quite descriptive and refers strictly to the lithic assemblages studied here. The strengths and limitations of their study are well acknowledged, but I miss some contextualization. Only in the final paragraph, a short mention of other archaeological sites is made (Gruta do Caldeirão). The authors should delve into the contextualization of the diachronic trends identified among the  Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic sequence of Cardina-Vale do Boi. Archaeological sites from neighbor or Paleozoic analogous areas (Foz do Medal, Cova Eirós, L´Arbreda, sites from Quercy) show similar trends in the management of the different raw materials types during the Middle and Upper Paleolithic, which could reinforce the assessments of the paper. I should recommend the following references:

Chalard, P., Faivre, J.-P., Jarry, M., Jaubert, J., Mourre, V., & Turq, A. (2007). Espaces du Paléolithique moyen. Témoins d’utilisation de silex allochtones en Quercy (France). Bulletin de la Sociéte Préhistorique Francaise, 3, 217-235.
de Lombera-Hermida, A., Rodríguez-Álvarez, X. P., Iglesias, A. A., Díaz Rodríguez, M., Valverde Tejedor, I., Pérez-Alberti, A., Cunha, P. P., Ba García, H., Aldea Moreira, X., Lorenzo Salgueiro, C., Mosquera Castro, T., & Fábregas Valcarce, R. (2021). Between two worlds: Cova Eirós and the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition in NW Iberia. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 20(42), Article 42. https://doi.org/10.5852/cr-palevol2021v20a42
Duran, J.-P., & Soler, N. (2006). Variabilité des modalités de débitage et des productions lithiques dans les industries moustériennes de la grotte de l´Arbreda, secteur alpha (Sernyà, Espagne). Bulletin de la Sociéte Préhistorique Francaise, 103(2), 241-262.
Jaubert, J. (1997). L´Utilisation du Quartz au Paléolithique Inférieur et Moyen. En J.-P. Bracco (Ed.), Préhistoire Anthropoligie Méditerranéennes. L´Exploitation du Quartz au Paléolithique. Premier table ronde. Aix-en-Provence 18-19 Avril 1996 (Vol. 6, pp. 239-259). CNRS.
Vaissié, E., Delvigne, V., Faivre, J.-P., Fernandes, P., Turq, A., & Raynal, J.-P. (2017). Techno-économie et signification culturelle de l’occupation moustérienne supérieure de Baume-Vallée (Haute-Loire). Comptes Rendus Palevol, 16(7), 804-819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2017.06.005

- Are the conclusions adequately supported by the results (without overstating the implications of the findings)? [X] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know.

The conclusions are supported by the results, by the authors should reinforce their assessments by providing more quantitative data (especially those aspects regarding the technological features of the assemblages) and contextualization. 

A conclusion section, summarizing the results obtained in this study and their significance, must be included.

Finally, some minor corrections and questions, 

- optically stimulated luminescence should be in capitals

- On page 2, lines 14-17, the authors refer to three main tendencies in the distribution of the raw material, but later they are clustered into five groups. It is confusing.

- The increasing values of heated quartz J18 show a normal distribution at the area H´/I´-17/19. Given that the excavation was made using artificial units, could they correspond to a single occupational event? Is there evidence of hearths or charcoal nearby in these layers? In that case, the presence of heated quartz in these layers could respond to functional factors rather than technological trends.

- The English version of the manuscript should be revised. 

The study presents a brief characterization of the lithic assemblage of the site Cardina-Salto do Boi, in particular of three different areas excavated, with reference to the raw material and technology used during Middle Palaeolithic occupations. From the title of the paper, a reader should expect a more in-depth integration of the data within the site formation processes, which is not the case. The main scope of the work is to find a direct correlation between the sequences of three different test areas based on raw material, technological and metrical features of the lithic assemblages, without questioning what are these differences due (different deposition rates, different location in the depositional environment, post-depositional movements).

One flaw of the work is represented by the lack of an objective and reproducible approach regarding the main methodological point, that is the identification of raw materials. Figure 2 should present these methods, however, only the raw material categories are presented, without knowing the parameters used for raw material characterization, which are not clear. I would expect data on colour, texture, minerals, microfossils, formation environment, and other petroarchaeological information. For this reason, some categories are not totally comprehensible, such as the “heated quartz” category. It’s not clear why the authors considered heated quartz as a specific raw material instead of considering it a taphonomic process. If these methods are deeply addressed in other papers (e.g., Aubry et al., 2022), please report a sketch table with main informations.

Then, I think that the text would need a thorough revision of the English, possibly by a native speaker, since in some parts I found some difficulties to follow the reasoning.

Other minor suggestions:

-          Page 2: In the introduction, there are some sentences apparently unrelated and not enough developed. In lines 2-3 “Lithic technology is one of the main tools available to evaluate human components and reconstruct formation processes”: please deepen this concept. How lithic technology can integrate studies on site formation processes? E.g., Through refittings, patination, edge and surface preservation, spatial analysis, orentation and inclination of artefacts?

-          Just after that, from line 4, the shift to another topic is abrupt and, apparently, it doesn’t follow a coherent logical line. Please smooth this passage.

-          From line 17: I would personally start a “Context” chapter here. Therefore, I would end  the introduction chapter with a reference to the application of the chaine opératoire/economic approach to the Cardina-Salto do Boi site for several reasons.

-          Figure 1: Please, indicate where the site is located within the picture of the valley

-          Page 3, lines 12-13: “A stratigraphical disconformity, interpreted as a deposition hiatus, has been identified between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic occupations”. To which unit does this disconformity corresponds to? I think a sketch stratigraphical sequence with the indication of cultural remains (Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic) would be very useful in this case.

-          Page 3, line 17: “...identification of three main tendencies in the distribution”, which are?

-          Page 4, line 15: change UA with AU.

-          Page 4, line 23: instead “for archaeology”, I would say “for lithic production processes”.

-          Page 5, line 1: with dimensions, do you mean dimensions of the flake or dimensions of the platform?

-          In the Results, I would suggest a table schematizing the lithic production methods attested, and how they change according to units, areas and raw materials. Also, a table with dimensional values (such as averages, maximum, minimum) or a boxplot for each group would be more readable in respect to the charts presented.

-          Page 7, line 3: What do you mean with prismatic reduction sequences? Are these single-platform cores with unidirectional detachments?

-          Page 12: please change the second “figure 10” to “figure 11”.

In conclusion, I consider this a good work which deserves to be published but after some necessary revisions. I therefore recommend to:

-          integrate the methods section with more information regarding the petroarchaeological characterization.

-          Do a thorough revision of the English by a native speaker.

-          Add/replace some tables reassuming more clearly the main data.

-          Consistently work on the “introduction” and “discussion” sections. In the first one, I would show how lithic studies would conceptually help to understand human and natural formation processes within sites; in the discussion, please integrate your results with other pedo-stratigraphical or cultural features in order to assess more in-depth information on the site formation processes, maybe also by referring to other similar studies carried on other Middle-Upper Palaeolithic sites.