[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Hard Two-body Photodisintegration of 3He

[Charles Hyde]

line 36:  The word “limited” seems unnecessarily harsh.  I would prefer to reword this sentence as follows (starting on line 34):
“For processes on nuclear target, phenomenological extensions of pQCD based on factorization [3—5] have been successfully developed.”

Line 70 replace “it” with “which”:
(starting at line 68) “… where other processes have shown signatures of scaling,
but the interpretation of WHICH is not clear.”

Starting from line 123 (paragraph starting with “The experiment E93-044 in Hall B…”) the paragraphs jump back and forth between Hall A and Hall B in a very 
confusing way.   I strongly recommend completing the discussion of Hall A,
before moving on to a complete discussion of Hall B.
Thus the paragraph starting at line 123 should move  to after line 176 (end of short
paragraph on systematic errors for E03-101) before long paragraph starting at line 177 “In the analysis of data from E93044…”

Line 196: I cannot find ref [32]Y. Ilieva CLAS Note 2011.  Is it a CLAS Note 2012?  Please give a more accurate citataion, at least the explicit CLAS Note number, and not just the year.

Line 238—241.  I do not understand this sentence “The CLAS data at other kinematics show indications …scaling may also be obeyed at other c.m. angles.”
What “other kinematics” ?  Are you referring to other published CLAS data?  Are you referring to other data not presented in these figures but present in the data tables that will be placed in the CLAS archive for this paper?  Please clarify.  If you are referring to unpublished data, unavailable to the reader, then delete this paragraph.

Line 242—249.  I am not sure that I agree that the data are structureless, or at least
that the data show no sign of resonance structure.  Isn’t there a dip a s = 13—14 GeV^2.  Couldn’t this correspond to the third resonance region (F_15(1.7GeV))? I don’t have an explanation why the third resonance region should be visible if the first and second are not, but there is definitely some structure.

Line 288 change ‘is’ to “are $t|>0.64…and…”

Line 312—313  Change
“… and that the three-nucleon bound system may be a better laboratory…”
to
“… and that the three –nucleon bound system may be an equally good laboratory…”
I don’t think “better” is justified.

Fig.3.  Can you add “Hall A” to the Legend entry “JLab/E03-101”?

Line 327—328:  at the word “a” (upper case shown for emphasis only) as follows:
“This is only one of A few examples of scaling in a nuclear photoreaction…”