Reviewer has chosen to be Anonymous

Overall Impression: Average

Content:
Technical Quality of the paper: Average
Originality of the paper: Yes, but limited
Adequacy of the bibliography: Yes

Presentation:
Adequacy of the abstract: Yes
Introduction: background and motivation: Good
Organization of the paper: Needs improvement
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Average

Detailed Comments:

I'm still not sure this paper is really doing a good job with respect to its title. Now, just to be clear, what the paper is trying to do is to provide some kind of analysis and meta-level commentary on the different notions and different ideas of explanations and trustworthiness being tackled, but I feel overall the paper's structure, background, notation, etc. is very poor. It is extremely informally written with a weak meta-analysis of the different aspects. There is no clear-cut introduction to the different definitions and how they might relate to each other. Since this is a second revision, I don't think this paper is strong enough. Perhaps it might be okay for some sort of short analysis or a white paper of sorts, but I don't feel it is technical or scientific enough.

Reviewer has chosen to be Anonymous

Overall Impression: Good

Content:
Technical Quality of the paper: Good
Originality of the paper: Yes, but limited
Adequacy of the bibliography: Yes

Presentation:
Adequacy of the abstract: Yes
Introduction: background and motivation: Good
Organization of the paper: Satisfactory
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Good

Detailed Comments:

- The paper reflects considerable editorial care and demonstrates an appropriate awareness of current literature.
- The authors propose a three-dimensional classification framework based on the distinctions between local vs. global, ante-hoc vs. post-hoc, and model-agnostic vs. model-specific distinctions. While the relationships between these axes are not explicitly articulated, the framework is acceptable for a categorization-focused survey paper and may help a general AI audience quickly develop an intuitive understanding of the field.
- While the taxonomy remains primarily descriptive and interpretability continues to dominate the reviewed literature, the authors have acknowledged this imbalance and contextualized it appropriately in Section 6.
- The writing style is clear, and the structure of the paragraphs is well-organized. Overall, the paper is readable and accessible to its intended audience.
- I have no further major comments. I believe this version is publishable in its current form.