Comments to the Response from the reviewers to be posted
tomorrow at noon.

Only if we want to make a comment on the answers (--> A:)
I added our comment (-> C:) after the quote of the original suggestion.
I have three answers with
--> C: Patrick, do you want to comment on this answer?

Best regards,
   Tjeerd

Dear Tjeerd and NIKHEF group,
Many thanks for the time you spent reading our paper and the detailed comments, along with precise suggestions for improvements.
We found your comments helpful in improving the paper.
Please find below answers (--> A:) to the points you raised which we did not implement in the new draft.
Best regards,
Aur��lien & Diego.
____________

General:
The "introduction" section is rather long. It can be shortened,
as it contains substantial information of the detector, trigger
and simulations, which should be moved to the "data sample
and event selection" section.

--> A: We tried to improve this in the new version.
--> C: We look forward to the second version

Title:
We present only a "branching fraction ratio" and not
"branching fraction measurements".
If "ratio" were to be added, also the order of KSpi+
and KSK+ should be reversed.

--> A: We remove instead 'measurements' such that the title becomes more generic and just says we are going to speak about BR and Acp's. We think it solves this issue without adding the word ratio (that was requested by EB referee).
--> C: OK

Line 10:
Remove "More precise measurements ... of these decays
... pi K puzzle".
It seems that "these decays" refer to other decays
than of those in our paper; maybe I am wrong.
A "discussion" section is not included, but the "results
and summary" section does not come back on the K pi puzzle.
It does not become clear how our B+ decays will shed light
on the puzzle.

--> A: We rephrase a little bit the sentence : "More precise measurements of their branching fractions and \CP asymmetries may also shed light on the B�����K puzzle" to make it more clear that we refer to charmless 2-body B decays and not to ButoKSH decays. We are still speaking on a general ground here. We hope it clarifies that the first paragraph concentrates on general statements and the second one on the decays under consideration.
--> C: OK

Line 11-15:
This is not a new paragraph as it continues the discussion
on the combination of different measurements started in the
previous paragraph.

--> A: we rearranged, in particularly removeing the first sentence that somehow repeat what is said before.
--> C: OK

Feynman diagrams here would be helpful.

--> A: we do not think it is necessary.
(--> C: Personally I have a problem to draw the contributing F-diagrams. 
        It is different from B0 decays.

Line 15-16:
The decays in Ref.[10] are B0 decays and not B+ decays.
Is this then relevant for our paper?

--> A: the abstract of this paper is misleading. For instance page 7 of [10] tells about the ButoKSh decays.
--> C: Thank you.

Line 17-19:
Why "naive averages"? Cannot we trust them?
In the analysis paper we quote the number of selected events:
3229 K0pi+ from Belle. This number is larger than our 1804
fitted events. Also the uncertainty of ACP(K0pi+) of Belle
is smaller than ours. Should we not discuss why we are
so inefficient on these decays, while for charged 2-hadron
decays we have at least a factor of 10 more events than Belle?

--> A: naive --> weighted (sorry we meant we are not doing something more complicated that just doing a weighted average, in particular that no PDG data is available since of the papers is recent).

--> A: we do not want to discuss much the reason why we are limited in statistics (for the moment) with these decays since it is mainly due to the difficulty to trigger on KS at L0 and HLT. We think it is implicit that KS are difficult to reconstruct and to trigger on, especially in two body charmless decays. 
--> C: If that is the conclusion of the reader too, does he dind a hint that
       indeed KS are not very effectively detected in LHCb?

Line 53:
Please, define "fully simulated" which is used in several
following places as "full simulations".
Or remove "fully" and "full".

--> A: we do not agree, and we think some published papers already mention fully simulated samples w/o detail.
--> C: Probably accepted jargon then.

Line 62:
This could be a place to state that charge conjugation is implied.

--> A: did it before.
--> C: OK

Line 75:
Replace "Tracks that are consistent with leaving hits in the
muon detectors are also dropped from consideration" by
"Tracks that seem to pass through the calorimeter by the presence
of hits near their extrapolations in the muon detector
may correspond to leptonic decays and are, therefore, not selected."

--> A: we prefer as it is. It could also well be decays in flight for instance.
--> C: Tracks cannot leave hits in a detector; particles can.
       Suggestion: "Tracks that are consistent with particles leaving hits"


Line 81:
Replace "greater" by "larger".

--> A: larger would imply a repetition.
--> C: In both cases it means that the numerical value of a parameter 
       is larger than another value. With the same meaning it is better to
       use the same words. My caution against greater (or great) is the
       more dominant meaning of being important.

Why must the B be displaced from "the PV" by 1 mm and its vertex be
"well separated" from all PVs?
Try to rewrite that in a sensible order, starting with the KS vertex
and then the statements about the B.

--> A: The KS vertex - B vertex z projected distance cut must stay at the end because we must first define what we call a B.
--> A: We inverted the order of the cuts for the B Vertex separation. But asking chi2VS on all PVS and asking VS>1mm is not the same thing. SO we believe it is better to keep both.
--> C: Patrick, do you want to comment on this answer?

Line 85:
Replace "Pairs ... are reduced by ..." by
"Pairs ... are shown in simulations to be suppressed by ...".
Only the number of pairs can be reduced.
It is instructive to indicate how obtained this knowledge.

--> A: We modified the sentence according to another comment.
--> A: We do not think that giving details how we can judge this statement is worth to be included in the paper. It can for instance be checked by looking at the KS_MM below and above a given threshold in Sz.
--> C: If the knowledge is not from simulations only, I do agree not to 
       mention simulations.

Line 90:
Add to "background"
"by using variables mentioned above and a few which are introduced
below".

--> A: we think this is implicit, and is not worth to be added.  Let's see what happens with the EB.
--> C: Yes it is implicit. I just made a footnote for myself to bring a structure 
       in all the different parameters.

Line 95:
The specification "in a cone defined by a circle of radius 1 rad
in the pseudorapidity-azimuthal angle plane" should start with
"for tracks ...".
Still it does not make sense. Please, rephrase this sentence.
Pseudorapidity should have nothing to do with it.
I can imagine a cone in space with an opening
angle theta of 1 rad, but not with a circle of radius 1 rad.
Is the pT in the equation for ApT also a scalar sum?
In that case Sum pT could also be used in line 79.

--> A: details have been added and cut rephrased. The "usual" DeltaR = sqrt(DeltaPhi**2+DeltaEta**2) where phi is in radians is used in many analyses (especially in jets-related analyses) adn the pT imbalance is used already in several LHCb analyses. Calling this circle an "hyperspace circle" would only make it more difficult to read whithout adding information.
--> C: We look forward to the second version

Line 257:
Remove "corresponding to data".

--> A: we think we need to keep.
--> C: Patrick, do you want to comment on this answer?

Lines 384-360:
http://arxiv.org/abs/ in front of arXiv would convenient for clicking

--> A: sorry do not understand. ref 33 and 36 are clickable in our version.
--> C: Patrick, do you want to comment on this answer?