Indicate in the comments box below whether you are happy with the changes made or if the manuscript is unacceptable.

Comments on revised manuscript

Thank you for the revisions to the manuscript. While many of my minor comments have been addressed, I still have concerns regarding my major comments, which have not been fully resolved. First, I appreciate that the data has now been made available on NCBI. However, the long-read datasets are labelled as Oxford Nanopore MinION data, which is misleading (example: SRR31850034). I understand this may be because SRA does not yet provide CycloneSEQ as a platform option, but this can be clarified through additional metadata. Specifically, the ‘design’ field for each SRA entry simply says ‘genome’, but it could have more detail, including that these are CycloneSEQ reads. The BioProject (PRJNA1194773) description could also include a clear statement that the long-read data is generated using CycloneSEQ. Second, I had requested a brief discussion of existing long-read platforms (ONT and PacBio) to provide context on where CycloneSEQ fits into the broader sequencing landscape. The authors have chosen not to include this, stating that they do not have direct comparison data. While I understand that such a comparison is not the purpose of this paper, I still believe that some mention of these platforms is necessary in the Background and/or Discussion sections. This paper introduces a new long-read technology for bacterial genome assembly, and readers will naturally want to understand how it relates to widely used alternatives. Finally, regarding my comment about supplementary figure labels, I still see the issue in the revised version provided for review. For example, the caption for Supplementary Figure S3 begins with ‘Supplementary Table S3.’ The authors stated that there were no errors, but this mislabelling remains in the PDF I received. As these concerns remain unresolved, I do not consider the manuscript acceptable in its current form.