I wanted to thank the authors for putting together such a wide ranging paper on what seems like a very interesting conference. The paper summarises the conference, highlighting areas where better data and modelling might be useful to reducing disaster risk. I have provided a very critical review, as the paper at the moment is very disjointed and lacks a clear set of research questions. The paper also seems to be based on circular reasoning with some major issues of bias in the methods. I think there is the potential to develop a really interesting perspective here, particularly with the work that has been done, but at the moment it is not suitable for publication, so I am recommending that the paper be rejected. I have attached an annotated manuscript with specific comments. To summarise my major comments:

(1) Research questions: The paper as a whole lacks a clearly defined research question(s), which results in the paper wandering over a lot of issues without discussing anything in depth. The paper variously mentions wanting to make recommendations to the future beyond Sendai, to discuss better frameworks (although the term is never defined), to summarise the discussions of the conference. I would suggest that, if this paper is a critical review of the future of Sendai, that the paper highlights the major themes, progress (as highlighted by the MTR and other papers), and where the research and policy gaps that need to be filled. 

(2) Lack of criticality: Throughout the paper many concepts are presented without a critical voice. For example, there is a call for better multi-level governance, but no discussion of why this has not been achieved, nor what the challenges to achieving this might be. Similarly, better data and models are often mentioned as a solution but this is presented without a critical view (e.g. I know many effective DRR examples that have been created with very little data and no modelling, similarly I know a lot of very good models that sit on a shelf and are never used). The paper recycles a lot of fairly well established academic theory without clearly establishing what is new. Also the referencing is pretty light in many places.

(3) Circularity: The paper discussed 4 themes that are key to the future. In the methods these themes are discussed as being prescribed prior to the conference. Then the work that emerges and the questionnaires support these themes, and recommendations. So rather than emerging from discussions, it appears that the data collected supports the themes that have been pre-ordained as being important. Maybe I missed something, and if so this needs clarification. In general, the methods section is not adequate for a paper of this type.

(4) Bias: This paper is based on discussions at a conference that mostly included European researchers from a few specific projects, only a few of these researchers responded, most of them work on floods. This must introduce significant bias, as evidenced by the number of recommendations that found a solution that was more data or better modelling. Being skeptical, is this a paper written by data scientists and modellers suggesting we need more data and modelling to support DRR. I think this paper would be stronger if that bias were indicated from the start, i.e. a review of how and where data and modelling can improve DRR going forward or something similar. 

I think there is a lot of really good information in this paper, but the current version is not of sufficient quality and organisation to make a strong contribution to the already wide literature in this area. I think there is a good core in there, and would recommend the authors rethink the approach around clear research questions.

The study “Reflections and Future Directions for Multi-Hazard Risk in the Context of the Sendai Framework and Discussions Beyond” aims to summarize the outcomes of the 3rd International Conference on Natural Hazards and Risks in a Changing World. The conference summary is supported by a survey of participants to identify perceived barriers to multi-hazard risk research and management. Analysing multi-hazard risk remains challenging, hindered by a lack of tools, decision-support systems, governance mechanisms, and adequate data, among other factors. This study is a valuable attempt to address such challenges. However, as a piece of scientific literature, the article currently suffers from an unclear contribution and insufficient discussion of the results in relation to real-world examples. I encourage the authors to consider the following points before the manuscript can be considered for publication:

• The study’s unique contribution is not clearly articulated. In the background, the authors focus heavily on the Sendai Framework, emphasizing its recommendations. For instance, the authors note that “To address these gaps, it is crucial to have a more integrated approach that acknowledges as well as actively manages and addresses the interconnected and evolving nature of multi-hazard risks.” However, numerous studies have already explored the quantification of multi-hazard interactions and associated risks. The key question is how the outcomes of the 3rd International Conference on Natural Hazards and Risks in a Changing World advance knowledge beyond what is already established. The authors should critically evaluate the existing literature to identify clear gaps that this study seeks to fill.
• Point 3 in the methodology section requires further elaboration. How was the survey designed? What types of questions were asked? How were participants selected? What were the key findings, and how did they contribute to achieving the aims of the study? Greater transparency here is necessary.
• Section 3.1 (Advancing Risk Science: Tools and Assessments for Resilient Decision-Making): The discussion of barriers to developing prototype tools and decision-support systems is useful, but the manuscript would be strengthened by including examples of such tools from existing studies. This would help contextualize the discussion and provide practical insights.
• Section 3.1.2: While the importance of improving data governance is highlighted, the current state of data governance is not clearly explained. The authors should discuss what current practices exist and what specific improvements are needed.
• Sections 3.1–3.4: These sections primarily summarize the gaps identified at the conference. To strengthen the manuscript, the authors should link these gaps to real-world examples and/or findings from existing studies. Doing so would provide greater depth and make the discussion more relevant for researchers and practitioners.
• The sentence “Currently in practice, this framework represents a paradigm shift in DRM by emphasising the need for a multi-hazard and systemic risk assessment approach. The framework focuses on preventing the creation of risk, reducing existing risks, and enhancing resilience, through four priorities.” appears to reference the Sendai Framework, but this is not made explicit. The authors should clarify this point.