Advancing Methodological Consistency in CLEWs Modelling: Introducing the Model Development Infrastructure
Comments
I have a few questions and suggestions for the authors: Interoperability: You mention that MDI outputs are optimized for MUIO/OSeMOSYS. Could you elaborate on the feasibility and effort required to adapt the structured data for other modelling platforms (e.g., TIMES, LEAP)? Are there plans to develop export modules for other formats? Data Quality and Uncertainty: While pre-loaded global datasets provide a great starting point, how does the MDI guide or alert users to the potential uncertainties when default values are used for critical local parameters (e.g., technology costs, demand growth rates)? Including a section on uncertainty communication in the instructions could enhance reproducibility. Scalability Concerns: You rightly note that Excel may strain with very large-scale applications. Have you considered or prototyped a lightweight database backend (e.g., SQLite) for users who might eventually scale to multi-region or high-temporal-resolution models? A minor suggestion: a brief case study or a link to an example of a national model built using MDI in the Zenodo repository would greatly help new users visualize the workflow and outputs. Overall, MDI seems like a pragmatic and much-needed tool that could accelerate robust CLEWs analyses. I look forward to seeing its adoption and future development, especially regarding automation and expanded dataset libraries.



![Author ORCID: We display the ORCID iD icon alongside authors names on our website to acknowledge that the ORCiD has been authenticated when entered by the user. To view the users ORCiD record click the icon. [opens in a new tab]](https://www.cambridge.org/engage/assets/public/coe/logo/orcid.png)