Hi Guys,
it looks like I'm not able to make it for the meeting.
My wife has likely to face an urgent teeth surgery to be decided
on a short time-scale.
A few comments concerning BAD1214:
* I'm a bit worried about the goodness of fit.
My impression is that the fit is not so good for Run4.
Could we please provide the chi^2 values for the single
Run periods in the BAD?
* In this context: Do we have any hint that something might
be different in Run4 with respect to the other Runs? E.g.:
The deviation seen around 2.3-2.6 GeV does not seem to be
generated because we do not understand the b->clnu BG:
Fig. 10, third plot on the bottom (Run3+4) looks good.
* Is it possible that the data-MC agreement would be better
when letting the other BG component free to vary?
* Similar to comparing the signal-enriched with the signal-
depleted sample one should probably check how the D* veto
behaves for the different run periods.
ŽBTW: I think the veto as it is now has not been usedat the
times of BAD540. If so, the text describing the main
differences of the analysis (Executive summary) needs
to be adjusted.
Heiko
P.S.: Kerstin, that also means that it is unlikely that
I can call you before the VubRecoil meeting.
