Hi Maarten,

I agree, but they defer most comments t the paper (which is fine). We'll need to be careful. I am slightly worried that they think that this

Section 9 is poorly written and hard to understand. You give a name to systematic uncertainties an explain how you got them but not not say which effect you try to catch. That's very critical for this analysis to be understood. For instance the first sentence of the simulation correction item is totally mysterious. Relative efficiency to what? Why would unweighted events take into account simulation statistics?

>>> We will work on that for the PAPER

Do we want to nudge back?

Cheers,

Patrick

Dear all,

We have received a reply to our comments on the Rk* conf note (http://cds.cern.ch/record/2256336).
In my opinion they gave satisfactory replies. Feel free to take a look and see if they are satisfactory for you as well.

Cheers,
Maarten

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	LHCB-CONF-2017-003-001-COMMENT-014 (a comment has been made on your comment)
Date:	Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:53:07 +0100
From:	CERN Document Server Submission Engine <cds.support@cern.ch>
To:	maarten.vanveghel@cern.ch

Dear LHCb Colleague, 
      The comment (LHCB-CONF-2017-003-001-COMMENT-007) that you made on LHCB-CONF-2017-003-001 
(entitled: 'Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays') has itself been commented on by Simone Bifani [CERN - EP/ULB] (simone.bifani@cern.ch). 

This new comment (LHCB-CONF-2017-003-001-COMMENT-014) may be seen at 
http://cds.cern.ch/record/2256336


Best regards,
       The CERN Document Server Server support Team

_______________________________________________
Bfys-physics mailing list
Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl
https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics

-- 
========================================================================
 Patrick Koppenburg                                   Nikhef, Amsterdam
 http://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact