Answers to Xugf’s questions  cj ->  KK  Liang Yan

Question 1 The systematic error for N>=6 should be considered A: I change to N>=6 to N=6 to get the branching fractions, and take the difference as the contribution of N>=6.

By comparing the multiplicity of charged tracks, the systematic error is about 0.04%. Considering the small uncertainty, loose vertex cut for selection of Ks, we still use the the criteria nGood>=6.

Question 2 You should give a weighted average for the TRK and PID instead to say 1% and 2% per track simply. A: Yes, TRK and PID for kaon are 1.58% and 2.23%. For Pion, we use 1% for TRK and PID as a conservative estimation

Kaon tracking

Kaon PID

Pion tracking

Pion PID

Question 3  cj Lineshape systematic error. A: Only use the MC shape fitting results to compare our results as the contribution of  cj Lineshape. KsKpi channels are

 AA  AB  BA  BB Chic09.55%3.17%3.18%9.57% Chic110.43%3.23%3.31%10.55% Chic210.25%3.15%3.12%10.31%

Considering PS factor MC shape convoluted Gauss

Question 4 MC models: As you described in App.D.1, the weighted eff. is mostly depended on the branching ratio of the intermediated states, If the fit results with a large errors, do you think it is reliable? A: I would like to use the weighted eff. instead of phase space eff. And change the weighted eff. based on the fitting errors, and take the difference as the systematic errors. (But it will change the final results, and some systematic errors should be redone.)

modeChic0Chic1chic2 h        body    eAA(%)eAB(%)eBA(%)eBB(%) chic     2.52 chic     2.44 chic     1.08

Question 5 If some necessary and important check you did no include in your memo, only referees know what are you doing, once your draft release to the collaboration, other people probably ask the same question, you will answer the same question again and again. A:……