This paper is linked/an extension to a previous study, but it does have a novel aspect and there is a clear rationale for the study.

I feel there needs to be more dicussion examining the decisions linked to expertise. I feel the findings need to be slighlty toned down to reflect the lack of signficant differences in decision making capacity relative to expertise as there was a difference at 50% but not 30 or 70%. 

It may be minor but introducing someone else's results (line 238, 279) in your results section is quite confusing 

Also relative to the experts and non experts, I would agree with the comments made in line 336 considering the recruitment of true experts in the area as a comparison. It would also help to link back to why expertise had little impact on eye movement behaviour (line 341)

I enjoyed reading the manuscript, however there are some sections of the paper that need strenghtening. As a first comment, I would like to see this paper a stand alone and most of the times the authors make reference to another paper (which is not yet published). My specific comments are as follows: 

1. L48 Not clear how Covid19 further impacted communication of uncertainty.
2. L56 The problem is not well articulated and the readers would benefit from an extensive literature search of how end-users have struggled with communication of uncertainty. A lot of work has been done in the past and the authors can make reference to how some the challenges to communcating uncertainty (eg. Spiegelhalter, D., Pearson, M., and Short, I.: Visualizing Uncertainty About the Future, Science, 333, 1393–1400, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1191181, 2011).
3. L78-- L85 A lot has been done on this subject of using visuals for communicating uncertainty and this would be important to emphasize this in this section (see Milne, A. E., Glendining, M. J., Lark, R. M., Perryman, S. A. M., Gordon, T., and Whitmore, A. P.: Communicating the uncertainty in estimated greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, J. Environ. Manage., 160, 139–153, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.034, 2015; Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Fagerlin, A., and Ubel, P. A.: Improving Understanding of Adjuvant Therapy Options by Using Simpler Risk Graphics, Cancer, 113, 3382–3390, https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23959, 2008)
4. L112-- L122 I dont think this is very necessary to discuss the relation between the two papers at length, I would focus on the problem this manuscript is focusing on and why it is important. The authors introduce the concept of eye-movement but quickly divert to another paper. Focus should remain on this paper. Again I would expand on the complex methods the authors mention in passsing and why they are relevant. A supplement of the test methods would be useful. 
5. L125 i dont see how these research questions analyse/capture the differences in the end-user groups
6. L147 Here again the authors mention the companion paper (which cant be found anywhere)- A summary of the methodolgy would be useful. 
7. L153 a graphical illustration would be more useful here and an explanation why the Eye link II eye tracker is useful or important on L156 is needed. 
8. I agree with the first referee, why would you report results from another paper, this paper should stand alone and casually make reference to the other paper when needed. 
9. L193 to 198 is the justification and it seems misplaced. 
10. The information presented from L199 to 204 should be presented in a table. Similar comment for L211 to 223. 
11. L238 seems misplaced as well as it belongs to discussion 
12. L259 to 266 should be presented in a table. 
13. L290 A plot of the accuracies for the different clusters would communicate the research findings here!