THE FOLLOWING HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN V6:

comments from Weinstein:

3) p3 par1: cite Lanen in addition to Steenhovem, Ulmer and Dutta

1) abstract (I need the time remaining to e89003 for the last line):
We propose to measure the cross section, \rlt, and \alt{} for the
$^{16}$O(e,e$^\prime$p) reaction with higher precision and to much
higher missing momentum and missing energy than E89-003a.  We will
perform this measurement at the same energy and momentum transfer
($Q^2 = 0.8$ (GeV/c)$^2$ and $\omega = 0.44$ GeV).  This experiment
will take advantage of the Hall A high precision spectrometers and the
self-normalizing waterfall target; the existence of accurate, modern,
relativistic (e,e'p) theory; and the existence of observables
sensitive to specific physical parameters.
We will compare our results to theoretical predictions in order to
determine 1) the limits of validity of the single particle model of
valence proton knockout; 2) the effects of relativity and spinor
distortion on valence proton knockout using the diffractive character
of the \alt{} asymmetry; 3) the bound state wave function and
spctroscopic factors for valence knockout; 4) the longitudinal
component of the higher missing energy (two nucleon knockout) cross
section (through the \rlt{} response function); and to search for and
determine the longitudinal component of 5) the two nucleon knockout
correlation ridge.
To compensate for the lower cross sections at higher missing momenta,
we will increase the beam energy to 4 GeV (increasing $\sigma_{MOTT}$
by a factor of 2.3) and increase the luminosity by a factor of 2.8.
We will also save time by not separating \rl{} or \rt.
This is an update to E89-003.  We are requesting 30.7 days of beam
time to perform these measurements.  E89-003a, which falls under
jeopardy rules, has xxx days left.

2) p1, ref 1: move the reference to the end of the sentence so it refers
to the relationship between the two regions rather than to 'our present
understanding'.

3) p3 new section between the 2 paras
 1.1 Results from E89-003a

4) p3 par 2 sent 3: 'in quasielastic kinematics at $\omega = 0.445$ GeV.'

5) p3 par2 sent5: start a new par with 'One of the most striking results
...' to maximize the impact

6) p4 before par 1: start a new section:
 1.1.1 Valence knockout

7) p5: take the text from 'The extraction of spectroscopic factor is not
independent ... of the bswf and spectroscopic factors.'  and move it to
the end of the section and make it a separate paragraph.  This emphasizes
the rationale for the new measurements.

14) delete figs 7 and 8.

15) p12.  Start a new paragraph at 'It is important, then, to push ...'

15.5) p12 new para (following previous one):
Although his calculation uses state-of-the-art ingredients (eg: bswf,
optical potential, gauge, nuclear current, relativity, etc) selected
{\bf before} comparing to this data, Udias has also calculated the
dependences of the cross section, response function and asymmetry to
these different ingredients.  The purpose of this exercise is not to
arbitrarily select the ingredients that best fit the data but to
understand, when the calculation fails to describe the data, where the
calculation needs to be improved.  Udias finds that $A_{LT}$ is much
more sensitive to the spinor distortion (relativistic effects) than to
the other ingredients.  In addition, the cross section, $R_{LT}$, and
$A_{LT}$ for the two p-shell states are differentially sensitive to
the different ingredients, allowing us to disentangle the various effects.

17) p12, before par 3: new section:
 1.1.2 E89-003a at higher missing energy

18) p12, 2nd to last line: weird word break: 'contribution-s'

21) p14, fig 10 caption, line 1: weird word break: 'd-ifference'

22) p16: misspelled 'absorptive' as 'absortive'

23) p16 bottom: repalce 'should be considered' with 'are'

24) p17 top: '... behavior because at large p_miss the single-particle
aspect of proton removal is increasingly masked by other processes or
components of the wave function.'

25) p17 section 2: put the physics FIRST!  A suggested 1st para is (this
is a repetition of the abstract):
We propose to measure the cross section, \rlt, and \alt{} for the
$^{16}$O(e,e$^\prime$p) reaction with higher precision and to much
higher missing momentum and missing energy than E89-003a.  We will
perform this measurement at the same energy and momentum transfer
($Q^2 = 0.8$ (GeV/c)$^2$ and $\omega = 0.44$ GeV). We will compare our
results to theoretical predictions in order to determine
1) the limits of validity of the single particle model of valence
proton knockout,
2) the effects of relativity and spinor distortion on valence proton
knockout using the diffractive character of the \alt{} asymmetry, 
3) the bound state wave function and spctroscopic factors for valence
knockout,
4) the longitudinal component of the higher missing energy (two
nucleon knockout) cross section (through the \rlt{} response function)
and to search for and determine the longitudinal component of
5) the two nucleon knockout correlation ridge.
To compensate for the lower cross sections at higher missing momenta,
we will increase the beam energy to 4 GeV (increasing $\sigma_{MOTT}$
by a factor of 2.3) and increase the luminosity by a factor of 2.8.
We will also save time by not separating \rl{} or \rt.

26) p17 sec2 par1: '180 mg/cm$^2$ per foil'  This should be 250 mg at an
angle of 30 degrees.

27) p17 bottom: replace the last sentence with: 'We have different,
although linked, physics goals for the valence knockout and for higher
missing energies.'  Don't let the PAC divide our measurements!

1) p29 'bite 1':  The s-shell cross sections and rates are irrelevant for
p_miss > 150 MeV/c since it is dominated by the flat continuum.  This
applies to tables 2 and 3 also.

2) p29 par 1: 'The full wq-acceptance is approximately 9x larger.'  9 is
too small since the full omega acceptance is about 300 MeV (about 6 times
the 50 MeV cut) and the full q acceptance is also large.

1) p19 tab1 caption: replace with: 'The proposed kinematics.  The electron
kinematics are fixed at $E_o = 4.045$ GeV, $E_f = 3.6$ GeV, and $\theta_e
= 13.48^o$ giving $\vert\vec q\thinspace\vert = 1.000$ GeV/c at $\theta_q
= 57.02^o$.  The numbers 1--3 ...'

2) p19 tab1, headings: put angle brackets around p_miss and E_miss to show
that they are average quantities.

3) p23: misspelled 'execellent' should be 'excellent'

4) p24 par1 line 3: 'requires matching four variables' (replaced 'equal
sampling' with 'matching') 

5) p27 par 1 sentence 1: add a reference to Figs 14--17 at the end of the
sentence.

6) p28 section title: change the title to: '3.3 Coincidence cross sections
and rates'

7) p29, last para, line 3: change 'HRS' to 'HRS$^2$'

1) I think we should include Ryckebusch's p-shell calculation on our
p-shell plot so the reviewers can see that we do not expect his s-shell
calculation to work at large pmiss.  Pictures have MUCH more impact than
words so it is not enough to just mention in the text that the calculation
is too large.  (This is the same argument I have with NL's paper: we need
to either show explicitly the weaknesses of the calculation or leave it
out.  Here we have enough room to show it.)

3) Tables 4,5,10: We will bin the continuum data into 5-10 MeV bins so it
is better to give the counts per bin rather than the total counts.  That
way the PAC won't think we are requesting too much data.

19) p13 fig 9: NIlanga's latest figure has the ryckebusch p-shell

20) p13 fig 9: You need to distinguish between the Ryckebusch single
nucleon KO calculation (dashed line) and the 2N KO calculation (dotted and
dot-dashed).  The caption is incorrect.

9) p7 par1 last line: is it R_LT or A_LT?

comments from Kelly:

What is the point of Figs. 7-8?  It is difficult to discern
the various line types.  I assume that the largest difference is
cc1 vs. cc2 and that the kinematic differences are negligible, but
that is not at all clear.  I suggest removing the kinematic variation
and simply describing it as trivial.  If the figure is supposed to
illustrate ambiguities in the current operator, why not include
cc3 also?  Will the anticipated error bars distinguish between
cc1/cc2/cc3?

The discussion/figures pertaining to the continuum are
not entirely consistent with the most recent draft of Nilanga's
paper, in which the HF is discounted for large pm.  

comments in general:

- get a new copy of the continuum draft from Nilanga
  for inclusion
- flesh out the summary