Addresses Ilya's Comments

> Slide 3:
>   - consider dropping “Some” from the title
>   - why capitalize Seed?
>
> Slide 5:
>   - The title says “Hits in BPIX layers 1 and 2”, but why?
>     Both distributions on this slide are about the layer 2. You do compare
>     here to the widths of the layer 1 case, still I would suggest to keep
>     only the layer 2 in the title.
>   - Why capitalize “hits” in the first
>     bullet?
>
> Regarding the outlook/plans: my understanding of the plan (although we can
> revisit my follow-up email after the first talk) is that we would like to
> understand better two things:
>   1) Understand what are the factors that make the dPhi for the
>      extrapolated case so much wider than the single hit resolutions of dPhi_sim.
>      For that, we were planning to examine separately the effect of the
>      reconstructed position of the supercluster being off and the effect of the
>      reconstructed energy of the supercluster being off on the back propagation.
>   2) understand the sources of hit inefficiencies. You almost say this,
>      since you list “define and measure efficiencies”, but consider changing the
>      bullet to understanding hit inefficiencies.

docs/presentations/2017_08_28/main.tex

@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
   \end{itemize}
 \end{frame}
 
-\begin{frame}{Some Definitions}
+\begin{frame}{Definitions}
   \begin{itemize}
     \item $\Delta \phi/z_{1}$ \-- Distance between \texttt{RecHit} and extrapolated impact position for first matched hit
     \item $\Delta \phi/z_{2}$ \-- Distance between \texttt{RecHit} and extrapolated impact position for second matched hit
@@ -83,11 +83,11 @@
   \end{columns}
 \end{frame}
 
-\begin{frame}{Hits in BPIX Layers 1 and 2 }
+\begin{frame}{Hits in BPIX Layer 2 }
   \begin{columns}
     \begin{column}{0.4\textwidth}
       \begin{itemize}
-        \item Same as previous slide, but with Hits in BPIX L2 instead of L1.
+        \item Same as previous slide, but with hits in BPIX L2 instead of L1.
         \item Note that $\sigma_{\Delta \phi_1}$ is almost unchanged from the L1 value (74.2 millirad)
         \item However, $\sigma_{\Delta \phi_1^{\textrm{sim}}}$ decreases by $\approx 1/r$
         \item This is because single-hit resultion is independent of layer.
@@ -155,10 +155,11 @@
 \begin{frame}{Outlook}
   \begin{itemize}
     \item Equivalent studies for FPIX
-    \item Define and measure efficiencies
+    \item Define and measure hit inefficiencies
+    \item Test independently effects of supercluster position and energy mis-measurement
     \item Optimize window sizes
     \item Test triplet (instead of pair) matching
-    \item Suggestions from experts?
+    \item Suggestions (and priorities!) from experts?
   \end{itemize}
 \end{frame}