Miha

The presentation is already very good! I appreciated the introduction which was really helpful for me (as a non-SYS expert). Please double check the time. Is it 10 or 15 minutes at the conference? I have a few comments and questions below to consider.

p3: I think the bottom right plot needs a bit more explanation. What does the 'probability' mean in this context?

p8: How come there is no requirement on MET?

p9: Suggest clarifying how are these uncertainties defined. For example, some of them are very low. What does a 1% uncertainty mean? Surely the uncertainty on the background itself is larger than 1%?

p10: Suggest stating in the slides which variable you are planning to fit in the multi-bin fit.

p10: Are the multiple SRs going to be orthogonal? It is not entirely clear why you need multiple SRs if they are already binned in mass across a wide range.

p12: Suggest adding a rough statement about the expected improvement.
 

Tae

Very nice.

If you are presenting this in person, many of the items on your slides are too small for the audience to read. Do you expect them to read it? If so, blow it up. This could be figures, legends, variable names, text, or whatever it is. Or put some labels on top of whatever it is. Or add arrows pointing to it.

p2. Organization can be better. Also, too many words.

p9: It would be more satisfactory if you can give a simple one-bullet reason why the ttbar error is so large in the table. And how you are proposing to improve it. Doesn't have to be too much detail, but it would add substance. I see that you do this later on p11. Mention here that you'll talk about it later.

p10: This slide confuses me. There's bin width, signal width (which I assume is decay width), etc.

The talk feels too long by a couple of minutes. Can it be more punchy? Also some of the statements throughout the presentation feels like it can be more punchy. You have a lot of nice stuff!

Many of your references are arXiv, which is fine, but the downsides of this is that I can't tell who the authors are for the theory papers. Does it matter? Maybe not. If it does, I'd do a more standard journal reference. Same with Theorists at Penn. If it matters who did it, I'd name them.

Good job!