The ground-breaking paper by Strauss et al. (2020), clearly demonstrates that salt tectonics play an even more significant role in the sedimentary and early deformational history of the Northern Calcareous Alps (NCA) than previously thought. Their pioneering subsidence analysis illuminates the importance of time diachronous salt evacuation and diapirism during the deposition of post-salt carbonate platform and time-equivalent inter-platform deeper water facies units. Their daring approach offers an intriguing explanation for creating accommodation space at far higher rates than possible by tectonic subsidence (crustal stretching plus thermal contraction during cooling) and relative sea level rise alone. Their new interpretations will literally fill several holes in our understanding of stratigraphy and tectonics in the NCA. A welcome early fall-out of their work are balanced cross sections where it was previously considered impossible to balance (Granado et al., 2019), thought provoking new depositional history plots (Fig. 6) and subsidence curves (Figs. 7, 8, 9), as well as fascinating and stimulating new interpretations for the growth and demise of Middle Triassic carbonate platforms in the NCA that may also apply to “other carbonate systems developed on salt basins” (Fig. 10). The methodology for subsidence analysis applied by Strauss et al. (2020), is excellent. They use formation thickness, absolute age of the top and bottom of formations, bathymetry, plus assumed values for what they call "tectonic subsidence" without salt. The authors constrain many of the inputs for their modelling well through data from their field work, backstripping and literature. However, I would like to raise concerns with some modelling parameters and how their variation could affect modelling results, including their solution to the Wetterstein platforms paradox. With this, I would like to encourage Strauss Granado and Muñoz to use this forum to further discuss the details and implications of some of their model assumptions that were perhaps beyond the scope of the original paper, but might be interesting for a broader audience. The initial stratigraphic thickness of the Haselgebirge Fm. is of pivotal importance to the outcomes of subsidence modelling and its interpretations by Strauss et al. As numerous authors have recognized for many years (e.g. Leitner & Spötl, 2017; Leitner et al., 2017), the initial stratigraphic thickness of the salt-bearing Haselgebirge (i.e. the thickness before diapirism, evacuation and basal shear-off during Jurassic to Paleogene nappe transport) cannot be directly observed anywhere in the NCA. That means the original thickness of Haselgebirge is unknown and has to be inferred from indirect evidence or from a justifiable model. An additional issue is that, due to strong deformation, no original upper and lower boundaries of the Haselgebirge have been preserved anywhere. Fossils are extremely rare in the Haselgebirge making age determinations difficult, but a Late Permian to earliest Triassic age is generally accepted based on spore fossils (Klaus, 1965) and sulphur isotopes (Bojar et al., 2018; see also Schauberger, 1986). This all makes the calculation of accurate sedimentation rates and subsidence curves for the Haselgebirge virtually impossible. Traditionally, estimates assume an initial stratigraphic thickness several hundreds of meters and up to 1,000 m (Leitner & Spötl, 2017; Schauberger, 1986; Tollmann, 1976). Building on the interpretation by Leitner and Spötl (2017) and Leitner et al. (2017), Strauss et al. (2020) interpret their layered “salt” unit (Haselgebirge Fm., plus Werfen/Reichenhall Fm.) as an extensive layer laid down during the late thinning phase of rifting in the proximal (i.e. nearer to stable Europe) domain of the Neo-Tethys passive margin. Based on this assumed situation, not on field data or other literature, they give their “salt” layer an original stratigraphic thickness of about 2,000 m in Figure 6, about double to quadruple the thickness in traditional estimates. Unfortunately, no further explanation for this high thickness estimate is provided in the study. Their “salt” layer may not be as thick and as laterally extensive as assumed by Strauss et al. (2020), for their study area. In addition, is their assumption that about 2,000 m of Haselgebirge has been deposited within 3 million years, implying a sedimentation rate of 0.670 mm/yr, a correct one? With their estimate of an original stratigraphic thickness for the “salt” layer of about 2,000 m not well constrained, their assertion (p.12) “Based on our analysis, the minimum original thickness of salt which we consider necessary to allow for the later Triassic evolution is 1,320 m” becomes part of a circular argument: by defining the starting thickness necessary for creating the needed accommodation space, their model results will inherently support such starting thickness. A pitfall of this circular argument is that it opens the door for a contrary argument: if the original thickness for the Haselgebirge Fm. in their study area would actually be significantly less than 1,320 m, which is possible from traditional estimates (see above) subsidence processes other than salt-related ones must have been at work in the NCA during Triassic times a substantial way. Strauss et al. (2020), combine the Haselgebirge Fm, Werfen and Reichenhall Formations in their study area into one 1,380-m-thick “layered unit” and treat it as "salt", with uniform density, specific gravity, viscosity and thickness. I understand that their assumption of a uniform unit certainly helps with modelling. The Haselgebirge, however, has a very complex lithology. It is a strongly tectonized (originally sedimentary?) breccia consisting of “halite, anhydrite, and fragments of silt/mudstones and less commonly fine grained sandstones and rare magmatic rocks mixed together” (Leitner & Spötl, 2017, p.472, see also Neubauer et al., 2017, Leitner et al., 2017). Blocks of carbonate rocks also occur (Schöllnberger, 1973). Its salt content varies from 0% to (very rarely) 100%, depending on location and sample size. In the salt mines of the NCA, the average halite content varies from 30% in Hall in Tirol to 50% in Berchtesgaden, Bad Dürrnberg and Hallstatt, to 70% in Altaussee (Leitner & Spötl, 2017). In the Tirolic nappes, anhydrite and gypsum appear to dominate over halite (Tollmann, 1967; Neubauer et al., 2017; Wessely, 2006). The geomechanical properties of the Haselgebirge are certainly not equal to salt in the area studied by Strauss et al., 2020. Thus, a question is which lithology determines its rheologic behaviour at any given point: salt, anhydrite/gypsum or siliciclastics? For future studies (perhaps including 2D and 3D modelling) on how diapirism, evacuation and escape of Haselgebirge actually functions and how much accommodation space for post-“salt” depocenters it actually could provide, it will be necessary to replace the currently conjured rock-mechanical parameters of Strauss et al. (2020), by ones describing stress distribution and resulting velocity and direction within the “salt” body more realistically. Both, physical and numerical experiments would help, as would intensive further intensive data collection about the “salt” body using well results, high-resolution seismic and potential fields data (especially from land-based and airborne high-resolution gravity surveys). They are all very costly in the alpine terrain of the NCA, but would provide valuable data and constraints for modelling. Strauss et al. (2020), repeatedly state (chapters 1; 3.1; 6.1 and Figure 2 lower part) that Schlager and Schöllnberger (1974), proposed, advocated and used a “thick skinned extensional fault model” involving “basement faulting” to explain the “Wetterstein platforms paradox”. This surely unintended misunderstanding should be clarified. Members of the Hallstatt working group at the University of Vienna around 1970, to which I belonged, had rudimentary thoughts about the role of salt in causing the “paradox” of thick Triassic shallow water carbonate platforms next to age-equivalent, partly starved, deeper water realms with very thin sediment fill (e.g. Schäffer, 1971; Schöllnberger, 1973; p.142). We also knew about the wide-spread occurrence of potentially thick Haselgebirge within Tirolic nappes, i.e. outside Juvavic units, from Hall in Tirol in the west to the Traunstein area (Weber, 1958) in the north, at the bottom of Lake Toplitz in the centre (see also Lobitzer, 2011, p. 62), to Kleinzell and Hinterbrühl in the east (see also Leitner & Spötl, 2017; Tollmann, 1976; Wessely, 2006). The paper by Schlager and Schöllnberger (1974), is a sedimentologic–stratigraphic study and has been understood and used as such until now (e.g. Lein et al., 2012; Ruffell et al., 2018). No tectonic model whatsoever was developed, introduced or proposed in that paper. We did not have the knowledge or the understanding of the geodynamic development of rifts and passive margins and associated subsidence processes in 1970 – 50 years ago! – that is available now. We tried to formulate our text carefully and to draw our pictures as neutrally as possible. Our Fig.1 leaves room for salt tectonics and was deliberately drawn as a sequence of individual scenes, and not as one combined facies schema for the entire Triassic as Fig.3 by Mandl (2000), was. A comparison between Fig.1 cross section b in Schlager and Schöllnberger (1974), and Fig.2 (lower part) in Strauss et al. (2020), shows that we did not suggest that there was faulted basement beneath the Reiflinger Kalk. If Strauss et al. (2020), wanted to contrast their brilliant explanation of the “Wetterstein platform paradox”, based on salt tectonics, against an explanation that invokes thick-skinned basement involved tectonics, the sedimentological- and stratigraphical-oriented paper written by Schlager and Schöllnberger (1974), just was not a good choice for that. Could unconscious backward transfer of later interpretations by authors invoking thick- skinned basement involved fault tectonic during the Middle Triassic of the NCA (e.g. Brandner, 1978; Schlager, 1981; Lein, 1987; Mandl, 2000) into Schlager and Schöllnberger (1974), have caused the misunderstanding? The subsidence analysis by Strauss et al. (2020), establishes that salt tectonics are significant in the NCA. Their exemplary effort helps to clearly illuminate the complex interplay of tectonic subsidence, salt-related subsidence, sea level changes, carbonate production and clastic sediment supply that leads to the “paradox” picture of thick shallow water platforms with prolific carbonate production and the sediment deprived, at times even starved, deeper water realms at their side. It is hoped that their approach will be applied worldwide to carbonate platforms on salt. In the central NCA proper raft tectonics on an inclined base of Haselgebirge, in combination with lateral salt extrusion and evacuation, may have created half-graben structures – despite possible earlier welds (see also Neubauer et al., 2017). Such half-graben structures could have provided the hitherto undiscovered pathways for open marine waters to bring nutrients to the mighty Upper Triassic reefs at the south rim of Totes Gebirge, NCA. This could be fertile ground for future studies. In this context, it is encouraging that Fernandez et al. (2020), have found clear new evidence for Haselgebirge diapirism during the deposition of Upper Triassic Dachstein limestone near the classic locality of Hallstatt (Upper Austria). Salt was definitely a factor in the NCA, but it is not the driver for each and everything in this complicated folded belt. The author would like to give special thanks to editor C. Magee (Leeds) for his patience and wisdom, Reviewers C. Jackson (London), F. Neubauer (Salzburg) and G. Tari (Vienna) gave helpful comments and valuable input. They all made this study much better than an earlier version of the manuscript. No conflict of interest declared. The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/bre.12549. The data supporting this Comment are publically available. No new data have been created.