Changes by Bob Michaels, July 3, 2012

Changes Made  
============

The discussion of deadtime (DT) should include a formula for
how DT affects the asymmetry.  I realize it comes out of a
simulation but the formula can be used to illustrate.  Therefore
I added a short paragraph explaining this, right before we
enumerate the three contributions to the deadtime.  Maybe it's
"obvious", but I have in mind a starting graduate student 
reading the paper.

In a couple places we write that the stat. precision goal
is "3 - 4%".  Made this more definite (3% for 1.1 GeV^2,
4% for 1.9).

"and a double-layered lead glass provided".  It was a detector.
So, "lead glass detector provided".

"scintillator triggers and cherenkov signals from the
standard DAQ".  The signals didn't come from a DAQ system.
They were just detector signals. Dropped "from the standard DAQ".

"Since scaler counting is free of deadtime effect ..."
Not really.  Scalers are rated at 250 MHz, so indeed should
not be the bottleneck.  I explained that.

The first time ``SUM8 modules'' are mentioned, I clarified what
they were.

This sentence was vague and told the reader nothing:
"These FADC data provide inputs and cross checks for the
DAQ performance study."  I've attempted to fix this by
providing a short explanation of what the FADC gave us.

"Comparison of the narrow and the wide paths helps to diagnose
the deadtime."  This wasn't very clear.  I've added some
explanation about what narrow and wide paths did for us.  I also
changed slightly the sentence beneath it about summing blocks

In point 2 on page 9, there is an unclosed paranthesis:
"(not true for this experiment ...
So, I closed it.

In the phrase "neither do we have FADC data ..." 
I changed "neither" to "nor".  Then it is grammatically correct.

"is also inconsistency" -> "is also an inconsistency"


Changes NOT Made, but suggested
================================
I'm not sure exactly how to proceed with these but the they should
be addressed.

I found this sentence completely vague and undefined,
i.e. more explanation is needed: "For pion triggers only one
set of discriminators on the TS signals were used."
Why only one ?  Which one ?  What was the idea here ?

The discussion of why there are inconsistencies between the
data and simulation is vague and not quantatitive.  The reader
is forced to look at figure 7 and try to figure out by himself,
as well as the implications it has.  How much inconsistency ?
How important is it ?  What is the systematic error ?

The results for DT needs a table showing the 3 contributions,
their errors, the total DT and it's error.

There are 3 question marks in parantheses that need to be
answered or erased "(???)" right before section 4.0.1.

Need to remove the blinded results and refer to the PRL.
The strategy is to publish both the PRL and this NIM article
simultanously, so they can refer to each other.