Dear authors and godparents,

Below are our comments on the first draft of the paper titled "Search 
for GMSB in Diphoton Events with Missing Transverse Energy at CDF II". 
We apologize for the delay.

Bo (for the Duke group).

We congratulate you for bringing this analysis to the publication 
stage. Overall, we felt the paper was well written and presented a 
complicated analysis succinctly. A few brief comments follow [page/
line numbers are from the double spaced version]:

==>Thank you.

p1, l15: keV->keV/c^2

==>Fixed.

l16: "At the Tevatron, sparticle production is dominated by..." since 
this is an unobserved process, this should be "sparticle production is 
predicted to be dominated by..." or phrasing to such effect.

==>Rephrased this sentence.

l27-26: The last sentence, starting with "We now consider..." is 
completely redundant with the first sentence of the paragraph also 
about the lifetime of 2ns up to which this search is done.

==>Done.

p2, l12: could specify the trigger threshold here

==>We used four different triggers and to list those thresholds make the draft 
over length limit. The reference should do it.

l19: "calorimeter cracks"->"uninstrumented regions [of the calorimeter]"

==>Done.

p5, l10-12: Since each point in time vs. mass space gives different 
optimization, how much would the results vary if you pick different 
point in time vs. mass space and use the corresponding cuts?

==>We use a single set of cuts to produce this plot.
We only lose less than 4% sensitivity by using this single set of optimial cuts.
This is described in Ch.6 of cdfnote 9575.

l26: for consistency, 2.6/fb->2.6+-0.2/fb (as in abstract and earlier 
in text)

==>Done.