*** Help from Diego Tonelli for the revision and my notes while revising ***

General
=======

Plots are a few and small. The editorial suggestions below may allow you saving some space (especially be removing redundant tables) which may in turn yield room for adding/enlarging plots

I suggest to avoid the word “rediscovery” — for the motivations Livio previously mentioned. It is scarcely relevant if this is in the offciial title of the originally scheduled talk — actual document titles can be changed. Suggest to avoid rediscovery also in all subsequent instances.

Suggest to use the common notation for particle masses: "m(xy)” for invariant masses of particle x and y and “m_x” for known masses tabulated in the PDG

Suggest to put all verbs referred to the current results to present tense, and keep past tense only when referring to previously reported results.

Detailed
=======

Abs L1: suggest to use the actual number (200/fb) in the first sentence. Or, if you want to keep 89.99/fb (which I would round to 90/fb, btw), then you might need to replace “in the past 2 years” with “from xxx 2019 to xxx 2020” as appropriate. If you keep “2 years”, then replace it with “two years”

Abs L2 “very good” —> ‘’very well” (or, better, just “well”)

Abs L2: I don’t think that saying “Waiting that the full planned data set will be recorded” is an expressionthat does us any favor here, as it suggest the idea that we are sitting until the full data set will be there. Also “Phase 3” is internal jargon that won’t be deciphearble outside. Perhaps you meant to say “While the data are being collected toward the final goal of 50/ab, which will allow searching for rare processes and high precision in spectroscopy, the current data already allow for performing analyses…"

Abs L6: add “decays” before the colon.

Abs L6: “in the former, the first evidence for…has been “

Abs L8: avoid “rediscovery”, avoid “Phase3”

Abs L8: “includes efficiency and resolution studies,..”

Abs L10: “background check” sounds awkward — suggest “background studies”

Abs L10: suggest “higher statistics” —> “larger samples"

--> As now I know that it is OK to revise the abstract, I gave it a general overhaul to better summarize what was actually presented and to edit some misleading information such as the "resolution study".


Intro

L1: suggest deleting “first” (discovery includes the concept) --> Check

L1 “by *the* Belle collaboration” --> Check

L3: the sentence “Among them…” is awkward, but I don’t have a good suggestion as I am not clear on what you want to mean here. Perhaps it’s sufficient to drop “the inaugural discovery"
--> Over the years the properties of the X(3872) has been intensely studied... : Previously I wanted to point out as 'among the newly discovered particles such as XYZ', however it seems to add no context.

Table 1, Caption: uncap “summary" --> Check

Abs L6 Suggest to end sentence at “debate” and start fresh another one after. --> Check

Abs L6 “deliver measurements that extend our current knowledge” --> Check

Abs L7 “The Belle II experiment, the Belle successor, aims to perform these measurements with luminoisties of up to 50 ab-1, nearly..collected. These will include precise determinations of the X(3872) properties with emphasis on its natural width”

Abs L12 “As the first milestone of this program, the Belle II experiment reports the first reconstruction of the ….”

Sec 2

L1 “The superKEKB” —> “SuperKEKB” and add commas before “shown” and after “Figure 1" --> Check

L1 “diagram” —> “panel” --> Check

Pag 3

L1 “the peak luminosity of” --> Check

L2 “vertical beta function” --> Check

L5 “diagram” —> “panel” --> Check

L5 Suggets to drop “In the core" --> Check

L6 “similar with” —> “similar to” --> Check

L8 “to the Belle detector” can be dropped --> Check

L9 “Cherenkov ring-imaging concept allowing Belle II to ” --> Check

Sec 3

L1 “are first identified statistically” --> Check. I would like to ask what 'identifying statistically' implies as I am foreign to the expression. (***)

L2 “likelihood selectors” —> “information” --> Check

L5 “candidates, subjecting them to a vertex fit, and constraining the resulting K0S candidate’s mass m(\pipi) to be.." --> Check

L13: “a condition...” —> “the condition..” --> Check

L14 Put “is applied before “where M.."" --> Check

Pag 4

L1 “conversionS” --> Check

L2 “rejecting misidentified pions, thus avoidng the need for further particle identification” --> Check

L3 Add “background” or “events” before the comma --> Check

Table 2: Up to you, but I see no need to repeat in Table 2 the same criteria you detailed in text. Suggest to only mention them in one place. --> I do agree. I decided to remove the table.

Fig 3 Caption: “Distribution of….with signal-extraction fit overlaid." --> Check

Sec 4,

L1: “using” —> “using the” --> Check

L4: suggest to move “are applied” just before “except" --> Check

L4: “measured mass” —> “observed mass” --> Check

L5 “and unbinned” —> “and an unbinned” --> Check

Pag 5

L2 “is summarized” —> “are summarized” --> Check

L2 “Only the statistical component of the uncertainties is shown for branching fractions” --> Check

Sec 5

Fig 4 Same comment as for FIg 3 --> Check

L2 “performing an unbinned” --> Check

L3 “low statistics” —> “small sample size” --> Check

L5 “information, as shown in Table 4" --> Check

L9 “log-likelihood ratio” —> “likelihood ratio” (in log would be a difference) --> Check

L9 “between the signal-plus-background and the background-only hypotheses” --> Check

L10 Delete the sentence about studies in progress --> Check

L11 I thionk what are shown in table are likelihood values, not the logs. Please check. --> *******

Pag 6

Table 5 Caption, delete the second “uncertainty" --> Check

L1 “The Table 6” —> “Table 6” --> Check

L2 “to a comparable” —> “to those observed in a similar” --> Check

L3 Suggest rephrasing “It shows that…” —> “Despite the increased beam backgrounds, performances are similar" --> Check

L6 Delete the sentence “Also….” — you already said that.

Table 6 Caption: “..efficiencies with those from a similar Belle analysis” --> Check

Sec 6

L1 “by reconstructing its D0D-barpi0 final state” --> Check

L2 “benefit from a much better” --> Check

L3 “thanks to the proximity (7 MeV/c^2) to the mass threshold, compared to the 500 MeV/c^2 gap in the J/psi pipi final state.” --> Check

L4 “Simplified simulations show that 3\sigma sensitivity on the width is expected to be accessible with 10/ab or more as show in Figure 5” --> Check

Pag 7

Fig 5, Caption: “Sensitivity to resolve the X(3872) width at benchmark levels of significance as a function of integrated luminosity in simlified simulated experiments” --> Check

Sec 7

L1 Suggest to delete “as its first exotic hadron study” --> Check

L1 “has revisited and observed” —> “reports the first reconstruction in early data of X(3872) decays in the J/psi pipi channel, using 62.8…" --> Check w/o "in early data"

L3 I am not sure what you mean with “constant upgrade” but that may be misleading. Suggest “constant improvement” --> Check

L3 “The Belle II” —> “Belle II” --> Check

L4 “towards precision studies of the X(3872) properties, including a natural width measurement in the DDbarpi0 final state." --> Check