Sunil's Comments on v 2.0 dt aug 25, two column version:

Abstract:

"at the 95% CL" or "at 95% CL"?  I am not sure.

==> Both PRL and PRD in Ref.[17] use "the" 95% CL.

"make exclusions" is awkward.  How about "we exclude.."

==> "exclude mass-lifetime plane" sounds also wierd. Changed to "exclude
regions in...".

P1

Line 22: consider breaking the sentence. ...Gravitino escapes undetected,
resulting in met.

==> Done.

Line 30: At the Tevatron, sparticle....
Also, since you use the word "predicted", you pretty much have to give a
reference right there.

==> Done.

Line 34: instead of "above and below", how about shorter and longer

==> Prefer to leave as is.

Line 36: This letter describes a GMSB search in which....

==> Done.

Line 38: state, where

==> Done.

Line 51: "search to consider" is awkward.  By considering?

==> Done.

Line 83: a comma after the reference?

==> Done.

P2

Line 4: 60 cm to reduce --> in order to reduce

==> Done. Adds words and doesn't help, but is ok.

Line 5: and to maintain

==> Done.

Lines 7,8,9:  I seem to recall an earlier language along the lines of "we
pick the vertex that gives minimum met" which reads better.

==> It's more complicated than just picking the vertex that gives minimum MET so
we kept it explicit. It would be easier if the analsys did what you suggest,
but not better. Since it's not what we do, we need to say it right.

Line 46: with no --> without or that lack

==> Done with "without".

Line 51: with a --> that incorporates detector simulation

==> Agree, but needs "a" in front of detector.

Line 53:  "pathologies ..same" is not clear. Whose pathologies? (for all
these sources) same --> identical or similar?

==> Rephrased.

Line 81/82: select --> utilize?

==> Done.

Line 89: figure 1 (top) shows

==> Done.

Line 92: heavy,neutral --> comma needed? I would have used a singular:
sensitivity to a neutral heavy particle that decays...

==> Both PRL and PRD in Reference [17] use it this way.
Prefer to leave as is.

P3

Line 24:  It is not clear at this point what optimization you are referring
to. Expand a little?

==> Not sure what's troubling you. We are optimizing the "mean expected 95%
confidence level cross section..." This is the first sentence in the previous
paragraph.

L 43: and is well-modeled by SM backgrounds alone.

==> Done.

L 49: D0 experiment

==> Disagree since we use CDF and LEP without experiment. 

Fig 3: Why is everything a region but an ALEPH limit?

==> Done.

Sunil