just a few MINOR comments.

We should try to get approval prior to FPCP,


Page 4:
Bracket missing in statement of result on BR

This Letter presents...       In this Letter, we present .... 

I do not see a problem with the reduction in efficiency errors!

Drop "from"  before [8}

Form factor   - two words

-----Original Message-----
From: Faccini, Riccardo
To: Langenegger, Urs
Cc: vub-recoil
Sent: 5/23/2003 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: replies to RC reading of BAD

Hi Urs,
some minor details:
	- missing parenthesis in the B(b->u) result in the abstract
	- one suggestion for shortening the first paragraph:
" The biggest challenge in this analysis is the reduction of b->c
background which leads to a stringent selection and consequently large
theoretical uncertainties on the extrapolation to the full phase
space[2]." (I don;t feel strongly about this, just have the impression a
single sentence on this is better than two, and shorter)

	- is formfactors a single word?
	- page 5 first column "These criteria improves the resolution in
the measurement of the missing neutrino" is quite obvious, since we are
cutting on mm2 ... I would drop this and write "These criteria suppress

       - page 6 column 2: when we talk of ss~ popping we talk of
"exclusive" component. For your same arguments, shouldn't we use
"resonant" ?

> you can find the replies  to Stephane's posting. Please read it, there
> is  one non-trivial item  (introduction remark  on systematics  due to
> Ru/sl -- I think we should remove the words on efficiences).

I don't understand were are you pointing at. Did you already remove them
in the current version? Of course whatever we can through away without
losing clarity we should (we are ~15 half-lines long)

This are all minor point. As far as I am concerned once any fraction of
them is implemented the paper can be sent back to the RC for approval to
the pubboard