comments & corrections for:
"Search for Supersymmetry with Guage-Mediated Breaking in Diphoton Events 
with Missin Transverse Energy at CDFII"



Abstract: lines 4 -7;  would read better as:
"We set limits on the cross section at the 95% C.L. and place the world's best
limit of 149 GeV/c^2 on th chi10 mass at tauch19 =0. We also make exclusions....."

==>Done.

Article:

Page 1,column 1, lines 2-4; I would be better to invert references to previous 
measurments [2 -> 3] and to the CDF coordinate system [3 ->2]. and to separate 
them as follows:
"Theoretical motivations [1] and the observation [2] of the 'eegammagamma +missing
 transverse energy (E/T)'[3] candidate events....."

==>We're following the style that previous papers used. For example, the PRD in Ref [16] does it
this way. 

Page 1, column 2, 3rd line from bottom of page: 
"jet pointing to the calorimeter cracks [14]."
It would be nice to define what one means by "pointing to" more explicitly.

==>Reference [14] describes this in more detail by saying that "Photons and jets 
are located at calorimeter cracks at eta~0 and |eta|~1.1".

page 2, first column, lines 1-4:
Given the content of refernce [2]([3] if you implement our first suggestion),
 It would be better to place [2]   after E/T (line 4) rather than after 
sigma(tracks)Pt in line 3.

==>The MET is refering to Ref.[2] in page 1, line 8 and sigma(tracks)Pt shows up 
for the first time here so we prefer to leave this as it is.

page 2, first column, lines 26-29:
move "(PE/T*fluct...)" up from line 29 to line 27, after "probability".

==>We put this definition here because we want to define ET^(fluct) first.

page 2, first column, lines 43 - 49;  "To obtain....backgrounds"
It is not entirely clear from the text how you use the normalized MC gammagamma sample
to evaluate gammajet and jetjet contributions to the background. A few more words apropo
or a refernece would help.

==>Rephrased the sentence.

page 3, first column, line 31 from the top:
"The GMSB sig-"

==>Done.

page 3, Fig 2 (top):
This does not matter much but, for consistency with the  bottom part of the figure,
the dark green 8% uncertainty band should have a central line corresponding to the 
production cross section as a function of the chi mass.

==> There is a central line in top figure, but hard to see. However it is
shown clearly in the legend.

Bibliography:

[2] <--> [3]

==>See above. Not prefer to do, but leave it as it is for the reasons
mentioned above.