Abstract:
- Replace "4.5" by "4.6" consistent with line 128.
- Replace "fiducual volume" by "kinematic acceptance"
  (It is a volume nor a plane.)
- Preference "The measured cross-sections are" over
  "The cross-sections are measured to be".

Line 17:
- See earlier remark on "fiducual volume".
- Add "for the selected kinematic region" after "written".
  (If I understand the meaning of factorization here correctly)

Line 24:
- See earlier remark on "fiducual volume".

Line 22:
I am puzzled. Can I conclude that Eq.(1) is not valid in our case?

Line 149-155:
- I suggest to replace "Results" by "Results and discussion".
- Replace "The cross-sections ... presented in Table 2" by
  "The measured cross-sections together with three theoretical
  predictions are presented in Table 2"
(The equations with the results are also given in the conclusions
and the selected kinematic acceptance is already decribed in lines 24-28

Line 174-175:
Replace "events in total with ... observed" by
"events observed with ... decay".

Line 178-181:
Replace "The results  ... will be possible" by
"The considered theoretical predictions are all in agreement with our
results. With more statistics in the coming analysis of our 8 TeV data 
we may also be able to discriminate between SPS and DPS-based predictions."
(There is also quantative agreement. What do we mean with "more data"?
If the 8 TeV results will be exactly the DPS values with half our present
statistical uncertainty, then we will discriminate.)