Dear proposing authors,

We collect the comments from the Nikhef group in this attachment.

Physics: 
You seem to be constraining the signal to be positive. 
How do you then average the L and D samples? 
In Fig. 3, the upward fluctuation at the Lb mass in D 
could be balanced by a negative fluctuation in L.

General: 
The introduction needs a revision. Take the first sentence; 
its grammar implies a "concept" is a "study". Try to make it simpler. 
In line 4-5 you define physical particles "by a mixing". 
We don't think mixing defines particles. 
Generally, the theoretical introduction in lines 2-19 is interesting, 
but not relevant to the paper as you do not measure any of these angles 
nor put limits on them. 
You can shorten the present text a lot, while the explanation in 
lines 274-284 can go to the introduction, so you can shortly refer to it
in the Conclusions.

In Section 5 you make our simulation look really bad. 
We do model the L0 trigger and we can measure the reconstruction efficiency! 
The question is whether you want to rely on it. Please rephrase.
If the PIDCalib uncertainties mentioned in 231-234 are smaller than the 
difference between the samples, we overestimate the systematic uncertainty. 
If they are larger, we potentially underestimate it due to fluctuations. 
Either way: Use PIDCalib uncertainties, not the difference.

Section 6: I now understand that not using FC would be flip-flopping. 
But why can't I get 68% CL intervals?

Why do you have the paragraphs vertically separated without indents, which
is different from our other papers?

Comments line by line:
Title page footnote: 
You write end of the paper, but you put the authors at the beginning.

Line 7:
Explain the index p.

Line 21:
Later you write that the interference can enhance or reduce the branching
fraction. Should here "lead to a different branching fraction" not be
more appropriate than "lead to a reduced branching fraction"?

Line 24: 
Replace "53" by "fifty".

Line 26: 
Why is the b->s transition called "standard"?

Line 27: 
There are always extra Feynman diagrams. 
Please, explain why they are relevant. 

Line 31-32: 
This is obvious. 
The line in the figure seems more to the point than lines 27-32.

Figure 1: 
Usually the spectator is put at the bottom. 
Move quark labels so they do not touch lines. 
B0 should be centered between d and bbar. 
In c the top of "d" is missing.

Line 68: 
Replace "the PV" by "a PV" (new template).

Line 83: 
Label your Ks and L as Downstream (D) and Long (L) as we have done 
in many previous papers.

Line 82 and 84: 
Replace "event" by "candidate".

Line 89-90: 
Explain that else the efficiency would be lower.

Line 94: 
Does this DIRA cut have any effect once DTF is applied? 
If not remove the text about the cut.

Line 95-113: 
There are too many instances of "required to". Please, rephrase.

Line 130: 
Use "MeV/c^2".

Line 140: 
Do you check if the two BTDs are consistent?

Line 144: 
Replace "event" by "candidate".

Line 146: 
Explain how you determine the combinatoric background.

Line 154: 
"highest ET photon is accepted" could be "highest ET photon is kept".

Fig.2: 
Label with L and D in the figures. 
In all captions remove "in the 2011 and 2012 data".

Line 164-166: 
Question to Patrick. What do you meaan by "Is that needed?"

Line 168 and other places: 
Replace "number of signal events" by "signal yield" 
(do not label them as events)

Line 171 and 173: 
Replace "events" by "candidates". 
This sentence is a bit repetitive.

Line 193 and Eq.4: 
Isn't it just B(K0->pi^+pi^-)?

Line 193: 
Remove "from the Particle Data Group [42],".

Table 1: 
Replace a),b),c) by the corresponding decay and
remove them in the caption. 
The index "tot" should be in roman.

Line 199:
Remove "all". We give a summary.
Replace "shown" by "given" or "presented". It is not a figure.

Line 200: 
Replace "One of the dominant" by "the largest".

Line 205-6: Isn't this obvious?

Line 223:
Replace "measured" by "determined" as we talk about samples
from simulation.
It would be nice to repeat the variables which are
mentioned in the Tables. In this case $C_\gamma$.

Line 229: 
Replace "statistics in the data" by "size of the data sample".

Line 236:
It is not clear what is meant by the "correct candidate".
I would expect here "any candidate". 
In the latter case you can multiply the two efficiencies.

Line 245, 254:
The expression "confidence intervals" is more common than
"confidence belts".

Line 269: 
Give the limit rather than explaining how it's obtained.

Line 277-279:
Shorten "the branching fractions are predicted ... 10-6 where ... decay."
to "both branching fractions are predicted ... 10-6."

Line 280-282:
Cannot we say that "our results are consistent with with calculations 
where the anomalous contribution is not neglected"? (Do they exist?)
Only in that case we can conclude that "a gluonic component should be present"
or even better "a gluonic component is present".

Line 328:
[12] Replace "Frere" by "Fr\`ere".

LIne 343:
[19] Use the 2014 PDG