Apologies for the lateness of these comments,  and congratulations on a
terrific effort.  My most substantial comments are about the OOC
section,  the rest are mostly typos.  

Steve


Pg 5,  tunning 
Pg 10,  80%/sqrt(e),   I thought we quote central hadron resolution with
an offset?
Pg 12, bottom,  %typo
Pg 20,  top:  fracvtions,   middle:  "a pi0s",   showeiring
Pg 21,  three dimension -> dimensions
Pg 22,  Minimum Bias I think we normally do not capitalize 
Pg 23,  40 - 25%   looks funny
Pg 27,  tracking eff = 0 at eta=2.8,  then is "low" for eta>2.8,   I
assume that "low" must mean the efficiency goes negative!?
Pg 27,  madge -> made
Pg 35,  bottom bullet no period
Pg 36,  first bullet  7 -> 7 GeV/c

Overall pt should be GeV/c everywhere,  it is many times GeV on page 36
and possibly elsewhere.

Sometimes modeling is modelling in the text.  

Pg 47,    figure 23 could very well be extracted and shown alone.   I
think the label should be pt (particle-level jet)  rather than
pt(particle) which looks like single particles.
Pg 48,   "is shows"
Pg 50,   label on top plot is partially hidden by bottom plot
Pg 51,   figure 26 label says "will add more samples",  I thought this
paper was ready to publish!
Pg 52,   I think  Peter would like Higgs capitalized. 

**Pg 52,   Section 9.1 needs some more explanation and I think a plot.
It says it used the same procedure as the absolute corrections,  but
those are fairly gaussian and the OOC is not.   If someone else makes
figure 27 with mean values it looks completely different.   Therefore I
would emphasize this and add a histogram of  ptparton/ptparticle for
cone 0.4 jets at 50 GeV.     We might also mention that if the peak
value was not used for this,  then the mean values would be very
sensitive to the arbitrary choice of matching criteria and extra jet
cuts.  I can easily imagine the D0 energy scale for 50 GeV jets being a
few % different than CDF due to different methods here.

**Pg 54,    same comment for figure 28 and the systematic uncertainties,
emphasize the use of peak value and add a histogram of the annuli
energy.


Pg 56,   typo in figure caption
Pg 56,   splashout section should mention the 0.5 GeV is to a good
approximation independent of jet pt.   It would also be useful to note
that this region is impossible to see 0.5 GeV above UE and this is why
we are not using data.
Pg 57,   extend -> extent
Pg 57,  statistical method -> a statistical method
Pg 58,   <= 1?   Events are used with 0 vertices?
Pg 63,   "the he so-called"
Pg 64,  "Fig.     36"