Please find enclosed a description of actions taken in
response to the referee comments. We repeat the referees
letter and indicate our response with lines starting with >

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

S.Belforte : Initial experience with the CDF SVT trigger
=========================================================

The general comment is that the whole paper is written in a rather
poor english. Especially the THE & A are a mess.
> The author thanks the referee for helping to improve his
> english.
The paper is full of slang frazes which can be used in a spoken
language but are unacceptable in a scientific paper.
The author should rewrite it and ask a "native" english speaking
member of the collaboration to make the final corrections.
> Done
Some corretions the author could do simple by runing a spell checker.
Please do it next time!
> A spell checker was run on the submitted paper. Indeed the referees
> does not point to any spelling errors, while making some of his/her own.
> The "standard" Unix spell checker was used. If a better one can be
> suggested the author will be glad to use it.
Below are my most serious comments. In CAPITAL letters I highlite the needed
modifications.
> thanks for your comments

Abstract
-------

1) Sentence 1,
should be "silicon vertex DETECTOR information".
> done
2) Sentence 2,
"tracks found BY the Level 1 central chamber fast trigger .."
"transverse track parameterS with ..."
> done
3) One before last sentence,
brake this long sentence, the 2 parts are not connected.
"... accepted by the trigger). Diagnosing rare ..."
> The two parts are connected, as the rest of the paper explains.
> We take this comment as meaning that the connection is difficult
> to grasp at this poin in the reading and follow the referee advice
> Done
4) Last sentence,
"This paper coverS THE SVT architecture ..."
> Done

1. The CDF upgrade and the Silicon Vertex Tracker
-------------------------------------------------

1) Page 2, 2nd paragraph
replace
"... with resolution, from actual Run2 data, ..."
with
"... with a resolution of ..."
> we prefere to make it clear that this resolution is not
> from specification or simulation, but from data.
> Changed to:
> "... with a measured resolution of ...?

replace
"... which works inside the L2 trigger ..."
with
"..used in the L2 trigger .."
>done

"THE design goals for THE SVT ...on THE Run 1 data, ...
> done

The impact parameter is defined as the distance in the transverse plane.
The last sentence in the paragraph should include that.
> done

2) Page 2, 2nd paragraph

Delete "in the trigger process."
> can not take this suggestion, the sentence describe how the SVT
> allows a specific data selections that could otherwise be done
> offline, the whole point of the SVT is not to select events with
> long lived particles, is to do it in real time !
> changed to
> "already in the trigger process"

Delete "uniquely"
> can not accept this suggestions. This adjective describe the true
> fact that only the SVT allows the indicated actions to be done.
> Without the SVT what is described would not be possible. Hence
> the "uniquely", which is a proper and terse way of sayin that
> the SVT "is the only one" who can do it (Merriam-Webster 9th
> edition, page 1290)

In the "Bs->Dspi-> >hadrons" something is missing, either just "hadrons"
or" >2 hadrons" .
> Changed to
> ">2 hadrons"

Last sentence,
"... reduced to ~30Hz at L2 AFTER including impact parameter cuts,..."
> done
Use d instead of d1 and d2 which are undefined.
> done

3) Page 2, 3rd paragraph,

2nd sentence " ... sectors of THE SVXII (wedges)."
> done

next sentence
"Raw SVX data flowS from from the front-end to THE Hit Finder ... significan
energy deposited and compute the coordinateS and centroidS."
>done

next sentence
"... to THE Associative Memory and to THE Hit Buffer .."
>done

4) Page 3, 1st paragraph
1st line "Each Hit Buffer BOARD storeS all hits and tracks FROM a wedge ..."
>done

3rd line "sends them to THE Track Fitter ..."
>done

5) Page 3, 2nd paragraph

1st sentence, you repeat the same thing by using different names :
pipelines, connections, channels, etc., simplify it by deleting redundant
words, e.g.
 "Data flowS throug the SVT pipelineS on point-to-point 23-bit
LVDS data channels running .."
> changed

2nd sentence "made OF" not "made by"
>done

"..., WITH data being stored ..."
>done

" ... is senD to THE CDF L2 processors on the average 10us after THE L1
"
> senT is te correct tense. Other corrections accepted/

                                       --------------
decision dependin on THE event size."
>done

2. Operational Challenges
--------------------------

1) Page 3, paragraph 1

1st sentence
"THE SVT design ..., both THE digital electronic simulation of all boards
and the simulation of the tracking algorithm using CDF data from Run1."
delete "so ona could feel ..." it is OK to say such things but it does not
fit to a scientific paper!
>done, also changed for better clarity

2nd sentence
skip "real", "primary correct operation.."
so the sentence will be
" when opertaing the system with beam data e.g. a full system test and
z-alignment.
>done

2) Page 3, 2nd paragraph

3rd sentence "The hardware ..." does not say anything usefull, delete it.
>changed to better explaining what was done:
> During full system test we focussed on spotting possible
> hardware, firmware or programming problems that may cause
> SVT to malfunction in rare situations.

In the sentence "Most SVT diagnostics ... " delete "on all events".
> changed to "that continously monitor data quality"

In the sentence "Special care ... QUICK REDUCTION OF system problems
to single boards or linke. Each board ... and check DATA parity on the input
cables."
>done

3) Page 4, 1st paragraph

1st line "...in THE SVT in ..."
>done

4) Page 4, 2nd paragraph,

1st sentence:
"The z-alignment issue is RELATED to the fact that THE SVT only fitS.."
>done

2nd sentence:
delete at the end "in the selected sample."
>done

3rd sentence "small" mpt "samll", "..to THE natural beam ..."
> done, also added other missing articles

3. SVT performance on real data
===============================

1)
The title should be "SVT performance with data"
>done

2) Page 4, 1st paragraph

1st sentence
"THE SVT ...."
>done

2nd sentence
"Initial focus has been ON THE system ....: debugging THE SVX and THE SVT
..."
>done

3rd sentence
"This activities ...to use THE SVT ... in the designED framework and measure
THE trigger rates."
>done

Next sentence
skip "anyhow", skip "real"
"The SVT has .. of THE SVT could .."
>done

Next sentence
"Good tracking ..." delete it or change it, it does not say anything
usefull except that
if the SVT does not work correctly than it does not work correctly.
>this sentence was meant to say that establishing good tracking
>resolution is the first thing to do in oreder to make sure that
>the SVT can work correctely, hence the focus on this particular
>topic. The sentence has been changed for better clarity


Start the next sentence with
"The device performed ..."
>done

next sentence begin with
"It has been operated ..."
>done

3) Page 5, 2nd paragraph

Replace "this" with "the" and "indicates" with "indicate" in
"Vertical stripes in the left plot in THE figure INDICATE ... "
>done

In the sentence "This proved to work .." replace "for online" with
"for the online"
>done

Next sentence " ... beyond THE SVT ...."
>done

Next sentence, delete "once"
>done

Next sentence, "Using THE offline ...."
>done
This is a VERY long sentence. Split in into two "... for the beam tilt.
This study allowed ..."
>done

Same sentence
" ... THE Run 1 data".
>done

4. Learning from the SVT experience
====================================

1) Page 6, 2nd paragraph
1st sentence
One cannot start a sentence in english "About harward ..." replace maybe by
"Concerning the hardware ..."
>done

The sentence "Early prototyping .. " is very hard to understand and follow.
Please rewrite in a more clear way.
>done. Changd to
>"We benefitted a lot from early prototyping of the SVT
> boards , but also learnt that is very
> usefull to delay freezing the project as much as possible in order
> to use state of the art technology to add flexibility and simplify
> the system by using less, more uniform and powerful
> components."

2) Page 7, 2nd paragraph

There are many sentences here which do not say much.

1st sentence: skip "so to make"
" ... plan from the begining for debugING and commissiong TO make this part
fast, ..."
>done

Next sentence:
"A key POINT is TO ALLOW the USE OF THE system in a ..."
>changed to "to allow one to use the system.."

Next sentence:
It is not clear what you want to say? Maybe replave by
"We made it possible to inject/read data and in general operate the SVT in
a standalone mode, however the data flow could not be related to the
DAQ/trigger timing."
>done, thanks. That is exactely what we wanted to say.

Next sentence:
Do not start a sentenbce with "Also .." instead
"The data driven ..."
>changed

3) Page 7, 3rd paragraph

1st sentence
" ... that WERE build into THE SVT ..."
this sentence is 9 lines long, whole paragraph!
Brake it into smaller sentences or itemize.
>done

4) Page 7, 4th paragrapg

1st sentence:
"In conclusion ... installed and operated IN CDF, IT performs as expected.
>done

Next sentence:
"Tracks are ... and THE bewm position feedback to THE accelerator is real
..."
>done

Next sentence:
"While THE trigger rates .... and THE device parameters ... that THE impact
parameter resolution is SUFFICIENT for the successful ..."
>done

Next sentence:
add THE in "Commissionig   ... THE SVT ..."
>done
This sentence is strange. You want say that commissoning showed the need for
commissoning planning. Just cut the last part of the sentence
"Commissoning ... data integrity control and inregrated planing starting
from
the design stage.".
>we wanted to say that the hardware must be designed keeping in mind
>what will be needed when debugging/commissioning it, not limiting
>to design the functionalities needed for steady operation
> Changed for better clarity to:
> "In addition it has made
>  it clear that the design must include from the early stages
>  the functionalities needed for debug, test and commission of the
>  hardware, at the same level with what is needed for the
>  steady state operation of the system."

General comments
==================

Replace all "Figure n" and "figure n" with "Fig. n".
>done

Your are using a lot of footnotes. I think they should all start with a
capital letter and and with a ".", like a normal sentence.
>there is only one footnote in the paper ! The initial capital and
>ending "." have been added.