## 4 Discussion and Conclusions  
In this paper, we investigated the ML = 3.3 Guidonia (Rome, Italy) earthquake that occurred on 1 January 2023 by the analysis of seismic, atmospheric and ionospheric data. From a preliminary investigation, seismological analysis identified an acceleration of the seismicity around this epicentre, especially in the previous six months. On the other hand, the atmospheric and ionospheric investigations did not provide any results that seemed to be linked to this seismic event, but some anomalies could be seismo-induced by the other seismic activity in the same period in the Adriatic Sea and Marche Italian region. The absence of possible coupling of the lithosphere with the atmosphere and ionosphere is in agreement with the low magnitude of the Guidonia seismic event (ML = 3.3). Such a low magnitude is, in fact, not expected to produce any ionospheric effect, per [PERSON] et al. [35], which proposed at least M = 5.5 or even M = 6.0, and per [PERSON] [45], which suggested M6.5. Finally, the seismological investigation not only clearly identified a seismic acceleration, but suggested that these events were likely part of a seismic sequence, and the analyses were compatible with two main hypotheses:  
1. The ML3.3 of 1 January 2023 is the mainshock of the seismic quiescence (R\({}^{2}\)-adj = 0.977 and acceleration coefficient C = 0.32);
2. The mainshock, of magnitude M4.1 (R\({}^{2}\)-adj = 0.988 and acceleration coefficient C = 0.36), could be an incoming event in the following weeks/months. The second hypothesis seems mathematically slightly more probable, but both hypotheses describe well the seismicity recorded in the previous months around Guidonia (Rome, Italy). In any case, the acceleration nature (C << 1) of all the reliable solutions tends to exclude that the events are part of a seismic swarm. Even though some speculation on the evolution of the seismic activity can be done, it cannot be considered as a prediction because no tests have been ever made, so, without a validation of the method by an independent body (e.g., CSEP, [[https://cseptesting.org/](https://cseptesting.org/)]([https://cseptesting.org/](https://cseptesting.org/)), accessed on 2 January 2023), the analysis has no predictive value. Furthermore, the correct interpretation of the time-to-failure power law fit is that a seismic acceleration during the last six months, in a 58 km radius circle centred on Guidonia, has been detected. Further investigations are absolutely necessary to propose the future evolution of the seismic sequence. Due to the peculiarity observed in the past months, the installation of geochemical and seismic multiparametric stations could be evaluated to detect eventual gases or fluids released from the ground and improve the completeness magnitude of the area. Finally, this example shows how these techniques could be applied in real time for monitoring (but not yet prediction) purposes. In particular, Figure 12 shows a conceptual idea of a multiparametric platform to investigate the lithosphere, atmosphere, and ionosphere. This platform could automatically download new data when available; specific algorithms need to explore the particular dataset. Finally, more complex modules would search for possible LAIC, considering the mechanism's physics (analogous to [PERSON] et al. [46]). An external clock would trigger the several stages of the multiparametric platform. For example, in the first submission of this paper, atmospheric data for December 2022 were unavailable, and we produced the limited time series to 30 November (see Figures S29-S31 and the preprint [47] of the first submission). In the revision stage, the atmospheric data of December 2022 became available, permitting us to provide the full time series. In the future, all of these stages will be automatically executed in order to concentrate on the upper level of the geophysical interpretation and investigation of the results.