Harvard group comments from the 1st reading

1. page 2 lines 16-17, the sentence is confusing - when you say "pass
these requirements" and just before you mention the beam halo
identification requirements it sounds like this is the number of events
passes these requirements, but actually these (beam halo identification)
are requirements you use for rejecting the background candidate events.
If you could just state it in a way which is 100% clear when you first
read it would be nice. Maybe say "pass these selection" or something like
that.

==>Done as "pass all the selection requirements".

2. page 2 lines 72-76, talking about non collision backgrounds is in
general not super clear in the paper.
When you say "similarly" so you mean exactly the same? if not, can you
point out the difference? if yes - maybe it's better to combine to one
sentence?

==>Comsics and beam halo estimates are not exactly same. However we tried to 
simplify the descrition of non-collision backgrounds since they are negligible.

In general the paper is in a very good shape. I enjoyed reading it.
If I hear any additional comments from Joao I will let you know.

==>Thank you.

Best!
  Shulamit