Dear Klemens,
Thankyou for the update. There are few things to follow up on:

General and very important.
Are the plots on slides 14 and 15 approved? I don't think so given they are not in the list available here:
https://confluence.desy.de/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=BI&title=Phase+3+Plot+Approval
for example the luminosity is not the official 410 pb-1 for 2019. Also, the axis labels are all m_Kpi and need to be fixed.

Rehearsal comments -
Slide 12: I think it needs to be made clear on the RH plot in particular that this MC, please write Belle II MC somewhere on the plot

Giulia's comments -
Slide 3: I think the SVD configuration in Phase II is still confusing as the fact that there was only partial azimuthal coverage is not clear i.e. 4 layers of SVD sounds like it was all there. I think a 'a slice of the SVD or PXD' though imprecise makes it clear that it was not complete.

Vishal's comments:
Paper reference style is different between 4 and 7 still

Some minor things in the new draft:

Slide 1:
Sensitivity for -> Sensitivity to

Slide 2:
succesor -> successor
assymetric -> asymmetric
space between 10^35 and cm, cm and s in Roman not italics

Slide 3: clarify that only results from 410 pb-1 of 2019 data are being shown

Slide 4: Gauss->Gaussian

Slide 7: bullets would make the text easier to read

Slide 8: I think the title should be "Simulation study of X(4014)" the subtitles are irrelevant now the first decay chain is no longer being discuss

Also rephrase 'reconstruction stays the same' for the same reason

Slide 10 BKG -> background

Slide 11: spaces between values and units, units not in italics

Bullet 5 ab-1, 1 needs to superscripted

Slide 12: same comment about units and values as before

Slide 13:
Ratio -> ratio
remove no pID as it contradicts last line
d0 and z0 -> radial and along the beam direction
pionID and kaonID is jargon
I think "Particle ID applied" is enough as the efficiency and mis-ID rates of these criteria are not yet calibrated.

Slide 14 and 15: make the comments on the side in a larger font also all horizontal labels are m(Kpi) which is only correct for the bottom left plot.

Slide 16: more italicized and abutted units
bullet 4 does not seem relevant without further explanation

If the D0 results are approved there should be some comment about them too in the conclusion