Hi Urs,
some comments on your XXXs

> FROM ECKHARD
>   http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/fsx/commentsToPapers/b2u/elsen.1

 > p1, ?4: We eliminate events with low purity... To remove possible
 > confusion: We exclude events in which this purity P is low.

why not?

> p2, ?2: - tracking and calorimetry details: With the curlers and energy
 > deposits mentioned here after the B-reco one starts to wonder how the
 > Breco would have been affected had the tracks been removed in the first
 > place. - My feeling is that this is too much detail.

we basically remove duplicates also from Breco since we do the overlap
also with the breco. I am in favour of keeping this
> p3, table I: 5 significant digits on the event yields and 3 on the error
 > is probably exaggerated.

what else can we do? I would keep
 > p3, table II: I think it is still not very clear from the layout of the
 > table that the centered values refer to the subtotals. What if you add
a
 > $\sum=$ before the entries?

you did it, didn't you?
 > p4, References: [4] has to be resolved
done (see commit)
> FRANZ
>   http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/fsx/commentsToPapers/b2u/muheim.1

 > Do you really want to quote three results in the abstract,
 > B(B->Xulv)/B(B->Xlv) and Vub are sufficient.
I agree to drop Br(b->ulnu) (keeping it in the text)
> paragraph 4.
 > Change the first sentence of paragraph 4 to
 > ... hadronic decays of the type Breco -> Dbar Y or its charge conjugate

we are actually missing the classical 'charge coniugation is implied...'

 > 2nd to last sentence:
 > "we require a minimum purity P to optimize the sensitivity."

I prefer Eckhard's solution
 > 3rd paragraph
 > 1st sentence: change to
 > "We select B->Xulv candidates from the B->Xlv sample by requiring ... "

this is not exact since we also reject other backgrounds

> STEPHANE
>   http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/fsx/commentsToPapers/b2u/willocq.1
> 4) Page 2 left column:
 > - Par.2: The last sentence refers to the "average mass". The sentence
 >   makes itsound like we are only concerned about being to reconstruct
 >   the average hadronic mass and not the event-by-event mass. Is this
 >   what you mean to write?

I think we can say that it is an unbiased estimator of Mx, since its
expectation value over the sample is the same as the mean.
> - Par.1: it seems that the sentence starting with "The residual
 >   background..." comes out of nowhere. It seems that it would make
 >   sense to talk about residual background in a discussion of selection
 >   cuts. Here it seems out of place. Are these numbers relevant to the
 >   signal region mES>5.27 GeV?

I like it where it is
> - "...electron, muon, and kaon identification efficiencies by +/-2%,
 > 3%, and 2%, respectively." The current attempt to compactify the
 > sentence is a little bit awkward.


I agree with him

	talk to you later
	ric
>
> The new draft is as usual at
>
>   http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/prl/prl-03.31.03.ps.gz
>
> While some of  the comments were easy to implement, I  mark a bunch of
> them with XXXX to discuss or because they need e bit more work.
>
> I have  not yet read the new  version, will do so  tomorrow before our
> meeting.
>
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>
>
> PS: Eckhard, the replies are not yet "ready" ...
>