diff --git a/draft.tex b/draft.tex
index 20c2815..a9bb747 100644
--- a/draft.tex
+++ b/draft.tex
@@ -283,11 +283,13 @@
 where ${\cal{N}}_{\lambda}^{(\ell)}$ is a normalisation factor, and 
 ${\cal{F}}^{(T)}_{\lambda}(q^{2})$ and $\mathcal{H}_\lambda(q^{2})$ 
 are referred to ``local'' and ``non-local'' hadronic matrix elements, respectively.  
-While the form factors ${\cal{F}}^{(T)}_{\lambda}(q^{2})$ can be taken from~\cite{Straub:2015ica}\footnote{In order 
-to guarantee a good agreement between Light-Cone Sum Rules~\cite{Ball:1998kk,Khodjamirian:2006st} 
-and Lattice results~\cite{Becirevic:2006nm,Horgan:2013hoa}, 
+{\color{red} While the form factors ${\cal{F}}^{(T)}_{\lambda}(q^{2})$ parametrise 
+the fact that the interaction happens inside the hadrons},
+%While the form factors ${\cal{F}}^{(T)}_{\lambda}(q^{2})$ can be taken from~\cite{Straub:2015ica}\footnote{In order 
+%to guarantee a good agreement between Light-Cone Sum Rules~\cite{Ball:1998kk,Khodjamirian:2006st} 
+%and Lattice results~\cite{Becirevic:2006nm,Horgan:2013hoa}, 
 %sure full agreement among the LCSRs and Lattice results.
-uncertainties on the form factors parameters are doubled with respect to Ref.~\cite{Straub:2015ica}},
+%uncertainties on the form factors parameters are doubled with respect to Ref.~\cite{Straub:2015ica}},
 the $\mathcal{H}_\lambda(q^{2})$ encode the aforementioned non-factorisable
 hadronic contributions and
 are described using two complementary parametrisations~\cite{Bobeth:2017vxj,Hurth:2017sqw} - 
@@ -326,7 +328,9 @@
 For consistency the WC $\widetilde{C}_{7}$ is also shared in the fit 
 and fixed to its SM value, given its universal coupling to photons
 and the strong constraint from radiative $B$ decays~\cite{Paul:2016urs}. 
-Similarly, all the right-handed WCs are fixed to their SM values, \textit{i.e.} $\WC_i^{\prime\,(\mu,e)} = 0$.
+In the following, all the right-handed WCs are fixed to their SM values, \textit{i.e.} $\WC_i^{\prime\,(\mu,e)} = 0$,
+{\color{red} while a sensitivity study on the determination of the WCs $\WC_9^{\prime\,(\mu)}$ and  $\WC_{10}^{\prime\,(\mu)}$
+is detailed in the appendix.}
 
 Signal-only ensembles of pseudo-experiments are generated with
 sample size corresponding roughly to the yields foreseen in LHCb Run-II [$8\,$fb$^{-1}$] and future upgrades 
@@ -349,13 +353,17 @@
 Within the SM setup the Wilson coefficients are set to  
 $\mathcal{C}^{\rm{SM}}_9 = 4.27$, $\mathcal{C}^{\rm{SM}}_{10} = - 4.17$ and $\mathcal{C}^{\rm{SM}}_7 = -0.34$ (see~\cite{Bobeth:2017vxj} and references therein), 
 corresponding to a fixed renormalisation scale of $\mu = 4.2\,$GeV.
-This baseline model is modified in the case of muons for two NP benchmark points (BMP), 
-\textit{i.e.} $\WC_9^{(e)} = \WC^{\rm{SM}}_9 = \WC^{(\mu)}_9 + 1$ and 
+{\color{red} This baseline model is modified for two NP benchmark points (BMP), 
+$\Delta\WC_9 = - 1$ and $\Delta\WC_9 = - \Delta\WC_{10} = - 0.7$,
+respectively referred to as \texttt{BMP}$_{\WC_9}$ and \texttt{BMP}$_{\WC_{9,10}}$, 
+where NP is inserted only in the case of muons, \textit{i.e.} $\WC_i^{(e)} = \WC_i^{\rm{SM}}$.}
+%This baseline model is modified in the case of muons for two NP benchmark points (BMP), 
+%\textit{i.e.} $\WC_9^{(e)} = \WC^{\rm{SM}}_9 = \WC^{(\mu)}_9 + 1$ and 
 %{\color{red} $\WC^{\rm{NP}(\mu)}_9 = - 1$ }
 %and  {\color{red} $\WC_9^{\rm{NP}(\mu)} = -\WC_{10}^{\rm{NP}(\mu)} = - 0.7$}, 
-$\WC_{9(10)}^{(e)} = \WC^{\rm{SM}}_{9(10)} = \WC_{9(10)}^{(\mu)} +(-)\,0.7$, 
+%$\WC_{9(10)}^{(e)} = \WC^{\rm{SM}}_{9(10)} = \WC_{9(10)}^{(\mu)} +(-)\,0.7$, 
 %$\WC_9^{(\mu)} = -\WC_{10}^{(\mu)} = - 0.7$,
-referred to as \texttt{BMP}$_{\WC_9}$ and \texttt{BMP}$_{\WC_{9,10}}$, respectively. 
+%referred to as \texttt{BMP}$_{\WC_9}$ and \texttt{BMP}$_{\WC_{9,10}}$, respectively. 
 These points are favoured by several global fit 
 analyses with similar significance~\cite{Capdevila:2017bsm,Altmannshofer:2017yso,Hurth:2017hxg}. 
 %but chosen with reduced SM tension in order to examine a more conservative hypothesis. 
@@ -383,6 +391,10 @@
 
     %
 \end{enumerate}
+{\color{red}On the other hand, form factors parameters are taken from~\cite{Straub:2015ica} and, in order 
+to guarantee a good agreement between Light-Cone Sum Rules~\cite{Ball:1998kk,Khodjamirian:2006st} 
+and Lattice results~\cite{Becirevic:2006nm,Horgan:2013hoa}, 
+their uncertainties are doubled with respect to Ref.~\cite{Straub:2015ica}.}
 %
 %The stability of the model and the convergency to the global minimum is enforced by
 %repeating the fit with randomised starting parameters; 
@@ -413,9 +425,14 @@
 \label{fig:C9ellipse}
 \end{figure}
 %
-Furthermore, we note that, as commonly stated in the literature (see \textit{e.g.} recent review in Ref.~\cite{Capdevila:2017ert}),  
+%Furthermore, we note that, as commonly stated in the literature (see \textit{e.g.} recent review in Ref.~\cite{Capdevila:2017ert}),  
+%the determination of $\WC_{10}^{(\mu,e)}$ is insensitive to the lack of knowledge on the 
+%non-local hadronic effects and thus independent of any model assumption.
+
+{\color{red}We note that, as commonly stated in the literature (see \textit{e.g.} recent review in Ref.~\cite{Capdevila:2017ert}),  
 the determination of $\WC_{10}^{(\mu,e)}$ is insensitive to the lack of knowledge on the 
-non-local hadronic effects and thus independent of any model assumption. 
+non-local hadronic effects. Nevertheless, its precision is still bounded to the uncertainties on the form factors, 
+that are found to be the limiting factor by the time of \lhcb Upgrade [$50\,$fb$^{-1}$].}
 %
 \begin{figure}[bth!]
 %\begin{center}
@@ -448,7 +465,9 @@
 Both LHCb Upgrade and Belle II experiments have comparable sensitivities (within $8.0-10\,\sigma$), 
 while LHCb High-Lumi has an overwhelming significance.  
 These unprecedented datasets will not only yield insights on this phenomena but also 
-enable a deeper understanding of the nature of NP.  
+enable a deeper understanding of the nature of NP,
+{\color{red}in fact, the clear advantage of the proposed pseudo-observables $\Delta\WC_i$ is that they are 
+insensitive to both local and non-local hadronic uncertainties.}
 %Note that these unprecedented dataset will enable insight towards the nature of NP. 
 %
 %the \lhcb Run II, $7.6(8.4)\,\sigma$ for \belle II 50~ab$^{-1}$ dataset and 
@@ -472,10 +491,13 @@
 }
 \end{figure}
 
-Modelling detector effects such as \qsq and angles resolution, detector acceptance/efficiency, 
-is hardly possible without access to (non-public) information of the current 
-\textit{B}-physics experiments.
-A first rudimentary study on the impact of a finite \qsq resolution is performed 
+{\color{red}As mentioned above, experimental resolution effects and detector acceptance/efficiency 
+are ignored in this work, as they would require additional information from the current \textit{B}-physics
+experiments. Nevertheless, a first preliminary study}
+%Modelling detector effects such as \qsq and angles resolution, detector acceptance/efficiency, 
+%is hardly possible without access to (non-public) information of the current 
+%\textit{B}-physics experiments.
+on the impact of a finite \qsq resolution is performed 
 assuming a \qsq-constant asymmetric smearing of the di-lepton invariant mass 
 in the electron mode; the size and asymmetry of such smearing is naively chosen
 to reproduce the mass fits of Ref.~\cite{Aaij:2017vbb}.
@@ -489,17 +511,20 @@
 Therefore, in this constrained framework these effects are even further suppressed and can then be neglected
 for the scope of this work.
 
-Another important test to probe the stability of the model consists in changing the 
-description of the non-local hadronic effects in the generation of the pseudo-experiments.
-In this way we analyse potential issues that can rise if the truncation 
-$\mathcal{H}_\lambda[z^n]$ is not a good description of nature.
+%Another important test to probe the stability of the model consists in changing the 
+%description of the non-local hadronic effects in the generation of the pseudo-experiments.
+%In this way we analyse potential issues that can rise if the truncation 
+%$\mathcal{H}_\lambda[z^n]$ is not a good description of nature.
+{\color{red} Another important test to probe the stability of the model consists in 
+analysing potential issues that can rise if the truncation 
+$\mathcal{H}_\lambda[z^n]$ is not a good description of nature.}
 We proceed as follows: we generate ensembles with non-zero coefficients for 
 $\mathcal{H}_\lambda[z^3]$ and $\mathcal{H}_\lambda[z^4]$, and we perform the fit 
 with $\mathcal{H}_\lambda[z^2]$.
-We vary the choice of the $\mathcal{H}_\lambda[z^{(3,4)}]$ generated parameters, 
-including a set of values that minimises the tension with the $P_5'$ 
-anomaly~\cite{Aaij:2015oid}, while keeping $\WC_9^{(\mu)}$ and
-$\WC_{10}^{(\mu)}$ at their SM values.
+%We vary the choice of the $\mathcal{H}_\lambda[z^{(3,4)}]$ generated parameters, 
+%including a set of values that minimises the tension with the $P_5'$ 
+%anomaly~\cite{Aaij:2015oid}, while keeping $\WC_9^{(\mu)}$ and
+%$\WC_{10}^{(\mu)}$ at their SM values.
 Despite the mis-modelling of the non-local hadronic effects in the fit, we observe 
 that the determination of $\Delta\WC_9$ and $\Delta\WC_{10}$ is always unbiased, 
 thanks to the relative cancellation of all the shared parameters between the two channels.