KS>> -- One quibble: in the text in this paper, you flip back and
KS>> forth between math mode and Roman for variables and algebraic
KS>> expressions, sometimes even in the same expression! e.g. F_$A$.  This
KS>> looks really awkward. I think it should be math mode everywhere (or at
KS>> least, consistent).

RIK>> Fixed.  Better consistency now for MA and FA and some other things.
RIK>> But there is still some inconsistency I don't like.
RIK>> I'll see what I think is best.

KS>> II C, 1st parag, V D 5, 2nd parag: should be 225 MeV/c

RIK>> Fixed

KS>> I assume you have no plans to update with HARP?

RIK>> Correct.  No update or comment.  I have taken some time to consider
RIK>> whether the HARP result would change the interpretation of these
RIK>> results, and see only minor effects on some of the less interesting
RIK>> parameters, but have not done a full quantitative analysis of 
RIK>> these effects.

KS>> p. 4 III A, last parag: it might be helpful to define a term,
KS>> e.g. "This analysis will be referred to as the 'spectrum fit'" 
KS>> or such, to be used later.  You mention it later, e.g. bottom of
KS>> p. 11, V D 1 left column, where it's not clear that "spectrum fit"
KS>> means the whole enchilada spectrum fit.

RIK>> Yes, I added such a definition.

KS>> p. 7:  "Note that E_nu appears in the expression for Q2_rec"
KS>>   Shouldn't this be E_nu^rec in the expression?

RIK>>  Yes and no.  It is clarified.  See next question.

KS>> p. 7  "...nor is our beam at a fixed energy"
KS>>     Maybe I'm just not following... although fixed energy
KS>>  beam would make it easier, wouldn't you still use the QE 
KS>> formula for all the events?

RIK>> If we had a monoenergetic beam, the formula for Q2 would
RIK>> still be correct, for every event (QE, RES, DIS). 
RIK>> It is still the square of the 4-momentum transfer (pnu-pmu)^2.
RIK>> We would use the unambiguously known Enu in that formula.
RIK>> This is in fact what the electron scattering (e,e'p) folks do.
RIK>> Becuase we use a wide-band beam, we need some E_nu^rec there,
RIK>> which in our case comes from the QE assumption, but you could
RIK>> imagine other ways of doing it that involve total visible
RIK>> energy, or some other simplifying assumption.

KS>> p. 7 B
KS>>    "both data sets" 
KS>>  would be more clear if you explicitly mentioned K2K I and II
KS>> (because by this time the reader has forgotten it and is wondering
KS>> what data sets you mean)

RIK>>  Good idea.  It is added.

KS>>  -- Eqn 8 is confusing... as written there should be dependence
KS>>  on E_true on the LHS; but what I'm guessing you mean is
KS>>  that the factor phi(E) multiplies each MC event according to
KS>>  its truth energy, so the expression
KS>>  should be more like
KS>>     N_tot = Sum [ A (N_QE(ntrack,E_rec, Q^2rec)
KS>>                     + B N_nonQE(ntrack,E_rec, Q^2rec))*Phi(E_true)]
KS>>    where the sum is over E_true bins 

RIK>> Yes, this interpretation is correct.

KS>> ... although eqn 9 and subsequent words suggest that such an expression
KS>> should be used only for the 2nd nonQE term, and rather the eqn 9 sum
KS>> (with the Phi(E) inside it) be used for the QE term.  Is that right?

RIK>> Not sure this is correct.  The Phi(E) reweighting is applied to both
RIK>> QE and nonQE MC samples in the same way by reweighting events.
RIK>> I have tried several ways to expressing these transformations, and 
RIK>> this version is more expressive of the method, the hierarchy of
RIK>> reweightings and parameters, but as you point out is a little 
RIK>> inconsistent mathematically, because of where Phi(E) should be put.
RIK>> Of course, the MC reweighting commutes through these expressions
RIK>> perfectly.
RIK>> I have tentatively removed Phi(E) from equation (8) and moved its
RIK>> description to the text only.  In this way, the mathematical rigor
RIK>> is recovered, without loss of expression.


KS>> -- p. 8 
KS>>    "Cross section effects due to the nucleus, especially Pauli
KS>> blocking, are included in the factor R"
KS>>   -> "The factor R accounts for cross-section effects, especially
KS>> Pauli blocking"

KS>> (this is the first place R has been introduced-- as
KS>> written sounds like the factor's main purpose is something else,
KS>> and cross-section effects just happen to have been included)

RIK>> Fixed.

KS>> -- p. 9 B
KS>>  "this particular combination"
KS>>    do you mean combination of values at best fit?

RIK>> Yes, I see this is phrased strangely.  Fixed.

KS>> -- p. 10 D
KS>> You might say something like "and now these systematic errors will
KS>> be discussed in detail" 

KS>> -- p. 11, second parag
KS>>  "assigning it to two pieces"
KS>>  The word "pieces" sounds funny here... "contributions" is better?

RIK>>  Rewritten, but I did mean pieces as in the immediately previous 
RIK>>  sentence.  


Typos etc:

RIK>>  I'm embarrased at all the typos that remained in the draft, and
RIK>>  have not reproduced them here.  Needless to say, they're all fixed.