Dear Peter,

as promised in my previous mail, I read the paper and have some  comments.
The paper is well written and it is a real pleasure to read it. As  Werner I'm really impressed about the amount of information which you  squezzed out of these few events.

a) As already mentioned, the paper should be made public to the  collaboration with the author list
b) 3.1, 1. para, last sentence: the way you treat the vertex position  seems to me unmotivated. The reader doesn't know whether the fitted  vertex or the wire position is more precise. This needs one more  sentence to justify your procedure.
c) 3.1 right column. You use S/sqrt(S+B) and explain the meaning of S  and B only in the next paragraph. Can this be changed?
d) 3.2, 2. para, last sentence: ... to which selection criteria had  been applied.  Which criteria? Most likely the same as for data, but  this has to be mentioned.
e) Fig. 2a: The referee will ask you why the MC curve left to the  signal is shifted. The region from 1.6 - 1.7 would look better if the  MC curve is shifted by one bin to the left.
f) page 6, left column, 6 lines below eq. 2: was assumed to be  ????  Please finish this sentence.
g) Table 5: where is the lumi error of 3.4% coming from? Calculated  from the lumi paper taking into account the correlated error?
h) page 7, left column, 2. para: when you describe Fig. 5, you should  mention that the old results where updated for branching ratios.
i) page 10, left column, 2. line: why is the lumi error per wire  2.5%?? They are much larger.
j) page 10, sec. 6, 8. line: were measured: ...
k) Ref. 1: Energy not energy
l) Ref. 14: et al without 2007. (2007), not (2006)
m) Ref. 19: page 312
n) Ref. 23. remove R after Battiston
o) I. Abt et al. This is not hep-ex


With best regards,