Dear Francesco,

Here are my comments on the emu paper (not about the bird).

Francesco, could you please check what was the original notation in the paper? In 1974 they certainly did not write M_LQ(B->emu) as the B was not even predicted. To me it looks like the mass is a property of the decay, while it's the other way round. In any case, we agreed that should be explained better. The text from the justification could be used.

My personal opinion is that we should not force them to go to a long paper. But some things can be shortened, others need expanding.

175: the supersymmetry models -> sumpersymmetric models (remove the) 194: is the mention of 2 fb^-1 meaningful if the energy and collision is not given? I'd remove. 204-207: That should go much later. But here one should explain the strategy, introecue the concept of normalisation and control channels. Else the rest is really hard to read. 244: B is undefined. 246: bremsstrahlung 254: $b$-decays 256-259: This is just wrong 301: invariant mass for background? 308: in 256 you said B->Kpi 330: It depends on event multiplicity and you use nSPD as a measure of it. But the signal shape does not depend on nSPD. Replace by event multiplicity everywhere. 358-363: remove and replace by a mass plot 368: fluctuating with toy experiments -> toy experiments fluctuating 381: why do you need f_u ? It only becomes clear later, write it there. 399: Use trigger paper instead of [30]. 407: This sentence repeats the one in 282. 413: are the signal regions defined? 451-453: Move that to 442. 469-471: repeats 456 473: remove carefully 513: do you need to give the B masses? 524: ... and the Z and the top? Fig 1 could go to additional material and be replaced by a mass plot.

Cheers,

Patrick