====================================== Type B ====================================== L21 It ought to be clarified here as to which effect (the improvement in lepton ID and analysis strategy or the doubling of the lumi) gives rise to the large improvement in sensitivity. This info would be important to defend the result and for ATLAS who would want to replicate the increase in sensitivity. L106 For a concise letter like this it shouldn't be necessary to mention the cross-check with the neural net. L108 "stringent" seems poorly defined here. Was this cut chosen to optimise some figure of merit? Better to just state that. L111 "cutoff-based" -> "cut-based" L118 "criteria on" -> "criteria based on" L139 The sentence starting "Simulated..." is a little imprecise. What fraction of signal events satisfy the criteria? L141 "having" -> "with" L203 Seems unnecessary to mention again the performance of the BDT-based lepton ID. One could suppress "Owing to the performant BDT-based lepton selection used in this search..." L217 "moving" -> "varying" "by its estimated uncertainty" -> "within its uncertainty" L217 remove "subsequently" L219 "propagated to all analysis variables, including the event categorization and selection" doesn't make sense as "event categorization and selection" are not "analysis variables", as is implied by "including". Perhaps you mean something like "stages of the analysis" or "selection criteria". L230 Using "limited knowledge" here jars a little as it implies there is something statistically different about the these uncertainties. Perhaps something like "uncertainties arising from PDFs", as you write for the scale, would be better. L234 I think I understand what you mean but the post-fit uncertainties on the associated nuisances contribute something to the final total uncertainty right? Better to just quote what the pre-fit variations are and say that they are all constrained in the fit so these theory uncertainties are not fully manifested in the final result. If it is the case these background are totally free, you should state that. L263 "...strengths measured..." -> "...strengths measured separately..." L277 you should quote the fiducial m_ll requirement again here