{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020228671943711522, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007036059806508356, 'mean_word_length': 4.865979381443299, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

You respond that your goal is not seismic hazard (response 1, reviewer 1), yet your abstract concludes with “Our work can provide a perspective time-independent seismic potential of faults” (l.16-18, p.1), which is a key ingredient of seismic hazard assessment. You claim and your simplified method attest that major implications for seismic hazard for Italy are not justified. I agree with that. So why are your last claims in abstract and conclusions about seismic potential relevant for seismic hazard assessment rather than about testing the usage of easily accessible fault databases on a national scale. I think such key pieces of formulation should be updated to reflect your goal better. I would suggest to not try to suggest implications beyond what the quality of your tests allows and remember the societal and political sensitivity such statements carry. Such worries are clearly stated by Valensise et al and reviewer 1, so please ensure that you remain concise and accurate about what your very simplified method can do and what it can not, particularly in the conclusions and implications you draw.