Dear Moritz, Matt and Dennis, This is a very interesting combination of a wealth of physics results! We realize this is a CONF note and not a paper, but given the interest this result might attract, a few things could need a word of explanation perhaps? Cheers, Jeroen, Kristof & Niels, on behalf of Nikhef/VU Main comments ------------------ 1) We would like to keep the mentioning of the "robust result" consistent throughout. Now, "B(s)->D(s)K(*)" and "B->DK-like" are used. We would prefer the latter. 2) We feel that LHCb should quote only one result for gamma in the abstract. We would prefer then the full combination result, as the studies over the last years increased the confidence in this thorough analysis. To reflect the asymmetric shape of the likelihood, we would quote it as: gamma = 78.9 +5.7 -11, ie. extending the lower edge to around 68 deg. (Also for the CL region in Fig.6). 3) L.77/78 Q: Is there anything different from using the 3 fb-1 result as compared to using the 1+2 fb-1 results separately? Perhaps an extra sentence on the changes is interesting? 4) L.84 Q: It is not clear from the sentence whether the previous combination did _not_ include GLS, or only 1 fb-1 ? L.104 Same question for the GLW/ADS with K*0. Probably it is enough to put "using 3 fb-1" between brackets: "(using 3 fb-1)". 5) L.91-93 Q: "For the robust combination ... to cancel any information from the B->Dpi system." Could you maybe add in one sentence how the B->Dpi decays enter in the robust combination? 6) Eq.61: The number for direct CPV in D0->KK seems wrong (should be (-0.11+0.14-0.13)% instead of (-0.15+-0.14)% , see Fit#3: 10 ak -0.11071 -0.13477 +0.13509 http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/charm/FPCP14/results_mix+cpv.html ) 7) Ordering of Tables / Figures on pages 11-13: * Would Tab.3 and Tab.5 fit on the same page, to make the comparison easier? * Tab. 4 could fit on same page as Tab.2 ? * Would Fig.2 and Fig.3 fit on the same page? Abstract -------- L.2 "from time integrated" -> "from the time integrated" L.3 We suggest to change the notation for the B0->D0 K*0 to B->DK*0 (w/o the 0 for the charm meson) to be consistent with the rest of the note. L.5 "K+pi-pi+pi-" has moved to the end of the line somehow. L.10 [A more explicit statement would help the reader:] "When combining results from B(s)->D(s)K(*) decays alone, we " -> "When combining results from B->DK-like decays alone, i.e. excluding B->Dpi results, we " -> 1 Intro -------- L.6 [How about a rephrase:] "including the latest results, which" -> "by adding ..." L.9 [It might be helpful to indicate which ones are updated and/or new already here.] L.23 [There is some repetition of "This is". Maybe replace ". This is" simply with ", "?] L.35 " a low value of the ratio r_Dpi that is not away from zero at large enough significance, is" -> "a small value of the ratio r_Dpi that is not significantly different from zero, is" L.37 [Q: This makes us wonder: how much sensisitivity is gained thanks to the auxiliary input?] L.37 [We suggest a rephrase:] "The input measurements reach their best sensitivity when combined with auxiliary information." -> "External information is needed to improve the sensitivity on gamma." Tab.1 [Move to bottom of the page] Tab.1 caption: "Ref. [1], they are" -> "Ref. [1]. They are" Tab.1 caption: "Free parameters" -> "Free and constrained parameters" Tab.1 caption: [Suggest to add:] "The decays listed below the horizontal line correspond to the parameters that are constrained in the fit." 2 LHCb input ------------ Eq 2: The comma between CP and fav is confusing. Suggest to put a "/" instead? (Or replace completely with e.g. "state" and mention in the text that state can be either CP or fav?) L.60 decay chain -> final state L.60 "D0->K-pi+" -> "D0bar->K+pi-" [to use consistently the D0bar as in the B decay.] L.62 "D0->pi-K+" -> "D0bar->pi+K-" [to use consistently the D0bar as in the B decay.] L.63 "The full set of _measured_ observables is" L.65, L.72 [Sentence is unclear. How about:] " .... in the Appendix. The systematic correlations were not used before." L.70 "Equations 1-3" -> "Eqs. (1-3)" Eq.(24) [Could you add a short sentence to decsribe x,y?] Eq.(25) [Suggest a consistent notation for the D-decay, as in Eq.(1)] Eq.(25) [Suggest to rename R^{KsKpi} to R^{Dpi,KsKpi} to be consistent with Eq.(3).] L.87 + 107 + 123 "statistical, the second is systematic." -> "statistical and the second is systematic." Eq.(34) "(syst),. " -> "(syst). " L.106 "for the observables" -> "for the measured observables" L.110 3fb-1 -> 1fb-1 3 Aux input ------------ L.125 Auxilary -> Auxiliary Sec.3.1+3.2 [We think it is more logical to merge these 2 sections.] L.134 "is very non-Gaussian" -> "is non-Gaussian" "It is used in a " -> "It is therefore used in a " L.144 "The ratio is calculated to be" Fig 1: "and delta() to denote delta()" seems a bit too trivial to mention. 4 Results --------- Tab.2 [How about adding a title-row, like "Analysis" or "Decay", and "Obervables". Also for the lower half you could insert a title-row with "Experiments" and "Auxiliary input" or so.] L.182 Suggestion: "In the full combination, the observables of the robust combination, listed in Table 2, are combined with the additional observables listed in Table 4." L.186 "gamma=72.8 " -> "gamma=72.9" L.189 "At the 95% confidence level, both combinations agree very well." -> "The 95% confidence level intervals agree between both combinations." Fig.6: We prefer if the 68% CL region for the full combination is quoted as 78.9 +5.7 -11. Tab.5 caption: [Suggest to add an explanation: ] "The two columns correspond to the two local minima found by the fit. The most likely value is the left column, corresponding to a large value of r^Dpi." 5 Validation ------------ L.195 ", and a toy-based approach." -> ", and secondly, using a toy-based approach." L.200 "point to overly conservative systematic" -> "point to an overestimate of systematic"