The letter is well written and organised. The relevance of the analysis is well motivated.

I have only very few comments to it:

======================================
  Type A
======================================

line 8: "... then they would IN top quark ..."

======================================
  Type B
======================================

L. 21-24: Here it could be said more explicitly that the 2016 data was analysed again with different strategy. Particularly saying that a "better performing lepton identification" sounds that previous analysis was sloppy, when we know that previously we used the best to our knowledge.
L. 249: It is not clear what it means "fit... to the normalisations of the WZ and ZZ backgrounds"
L. 265: Here the authors could include by how much the new strategy improved the results.