Hi Jeff,

I learned from Frank Tackmann, collaborator of Zoltan Ligeti, that there 
is an important connection between B->Xulnu and B->Xsll:
In the B->Xsll you are applying a cut in MX and q^2. The MX cut applied 
is around 1.8 GeV and the q^2 region between 1 and 6 GeV^2 if I'm not 
mistaken. This is in the shape function region and hence is an important 
theoretical error in the interpretation of B->Xsll wrt NP.

Now, as you already know from Zoltan this error could be significantly 
reduced if one used the measured rates B->Xulnu by applying the same 
MX-q^2 cuts. In the main analysis we are cutting on MX<1.7 GeV and
q^2>8 GeV^2. However, there is no reason to not quote in addition partial 
BF's for other cuts if they can be useful for B->Xsll. 

The VubRecoil group aims for a publication of the MX-q^2 analysis in the 
forthcoming months. I think it might be useful if we already take into 
account that the B->Xsll analysis would profit from quoting partial BF's 
for certain sets of MX-q^2 cuts. These would be partial BF's unfolded for 
detector effects, that is, the quoted MX-q^2 cut values are the true ones.

To use our results you have to do of course the same in B->Xsll. Maybe 
you could profit from the one-bin unfolding method used in the VubRecoil-
MX-q^2 analysis. What do you think?

Cheers,
Heiko