comments & corrections from Trieste for second draft of:
"Search for Supersymmetry with Guage-Mediated Breaking in Diphoton Events 
with Missing Transverse Energy at CDF II" (version 2.1.1)


page 1, lines 30-31:  "...is predicted to result primarily in guagino pairs,....."

==>Done.

page 1, lines 39-42: reads better as  "We use a data set corresponding to an
integrated luminosity of 2.6+/-0.2 fb-1 of ppbar collisions collected with the
CDF II detector [13] at sqt(s)=1.96 TeV"

==>Done.

page 1, lines 45-46:  reads better as "...and a new model (METMODEL) [15] for the E/T 
resolution."

==>Disagree. We usually define things after we have said what they are.

page 1, lines 48-49:  reads better as "...which allows us to enhance the sensitivity
of the search for large chi10 masses considerably compared......"

==>Done.

page 1, line 55:  reads better as ""...transverse energy in correspondence to the 
decays..."

==>Disagree. The meaning is lost.

page 1, lines 57-60: rather confusing in the present form. Am I correct in interpreting
the meaning as follows?  "...., taking into account SM background (mismeasured or 
"fake" E/T, electroweak production with real E/T and non-collsion sources) and signal 
predictions."

==>Disagree. non-collision isn't SM background. Rephrased.

page 1, lines 65 would  read better as: ".... These include a 3.1-m long......"

==>Prefer to leave as is since most of our sentences are too long already (see
SPRG comments).

page 1, line 70: maybe better to substitute the word "part" for "barrel" since you have 
neglected to mention the wall calorimeters. 

==>Done.

page 1, line 74:  " ...[16] and to provide....."

==>Done.

page 1, lines 75-76:  "....a timing system (EMTiming) [14]..."

==>Done.

p2, l1 could you give more information about the reason you do not consider
the first high Et photon?

==> If a photon hit a crack resulting in energy lost, the photon would be a
second highest photon. Adding this would be too much detail on a detail.

page 2, lines 3-4: should read: "We require a primary....."

==>Done.

page 2, lines 6-9:  the meaning is not clear. These lines should be rewritten. WOuld it 
be correct to write:  " For events with multiple vertices,  we choose the vertex 
corresponding to the lowest event E/T" ?

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

page 2, line 25: "..or to event reconstruction..."

==>Done.

page 2, lines 31-34: reads better as "...calculates the probablity PE/Tfluct>=E/T that
a fluctuation E/Tfluct in the energy measurement will be larger than the measured E/T."

==>We usually define names after we define things. We just change "a
probability" to "the probability".

page 2, lines 50-52:  reads better as "...event reconstruction using a gamagamma sample 
generated with a PYTHIA Monte Carlo (MC) [18] which incorporates...."

==>Agree, but "that" shouldn't be replaced by "which". 

page 2, lines 97-98: I think the correct statement is "....that occur in the detector 
acceptance, are..."

==>Prefer to leave as is since detector acceptance is a jargon.

page 3, Fig2  production cross section --> theoretical production cross section

==>Done.

Page 3, line 56-57: " There is no excess of events beyond SM expectations"

==>Disagree since there are SM and non-collision backgrounds in the
expectation.