Type B

• General comment: at the actual level of integrated luminosity, some of the analysis presented seem to have different discovery potential for the higgsino. The inputs for the final limit are displayed in figure 5,7,10,12 ; it would be better to emphasize those with more sensitivity in chapter 10.

• Line 169: On the lepton isolation, are you applying rho or delta beta correction?

• Line 152: Please write explicitly that, even if you are using fast-sim for most of your signal generation, this procedure has been validated and the level of systematics uncertainty you are considering for the detector response mis-modeling, if any systematics is taken into account.

• Line 181: which is the fraction of signal events with more than 5 jets ? Are you taking into account a theoretical uncertainty for this jet counting on your signal cross section?

• Figure 2: There is an important discrepancy between data and mc expectation, which means that the ttbar cross section is not well described in this phase space. Even if this background is then extracted from data, this difference can be mis-leading. Since on the MC expectation the uncertainty band is statistical only, It would be more correct to add also the systematic uncertainty. Since in any case the overall background normalization is extracted from data, it might be better to normalize the background to the events measured in data. Since in Figure 13 you have 3 sigma deviation in the observed limit with respect to the expected, it would be better to show in all the hh->4b plots the expected signal for a mass of 130 GeV. It would be better to rebin the last two plots to see if, at least, there is a shape agreement between data and simulation.

• Line 229: the definition of SB and SIG is the result of an optimization procedure? Did you study the effect on the analysis performance in enlarging or reducing SIG region?

• Figure 5: it is better to show a lighter higgsino mass signal, like 130 GeV instead of 250 GeV.

• Figure 6: showing data point under 100 GeV does not help in better understanding the physics content of the plot, it would be better to drop them. In addition, please use asymmettric error bars when you have low yields in data.

• Figure 7: The background is extracted from data in a higgs free region , are you considering the contribution from SM h->yy + 2jets in the final selected event sample? If you have an estimation and if it is negligible, please clarify better this point in the text.

• Figure 8: Why are you using missing ET for the final shape analysis? Have you tried to use S_{T}^{h} as done by hh->yybb search? It looks like this channel has a really poor discrimination power and it cannot be found in the final limit (Figure 13) for hh+met searches. It would be better to clarify which is the sensitivity of this channel alone and the reason why is inserted in this paper.

• *Line 377-379: this sentence has to be re-written. Looking the plot in figure 10, it seems that the discriminating power of mT helps you in discriminating signal from non genuine W backgrounds (in fact SM higgs boson VH production has exactly the same shape of the signal) and that can be a reasonable argument to use this variable.

• Line 417: Please add of M^{j}_{T2} in order to understand better how it looks like for signal and background and to appreciate its discrimination power.

• Line 448-458: Is really difficult to understand this sentence. Please clarify better how you extract the flavor symmetric component.

• Table 7: Are you assigning a systematic uncertainty on the signal expectation due to differences between fast-sim and full-sim? Are you considering a shape uncertainty on your signal templates?

• Figure 13: Expected lines difficult to distinguish in black and white. I would suggest to use more different styles.

Type A

• Line 16: "E_{T}^{miss}" -> "(E_{T}^{miss})"

• Line 24: "VV^{'} states" -> "VV^{'} final states"

• Figure 1, caption: "(left and center)" -> "(Left and Center)"

• Figure 1, caption : "(right)" -> "(Right)"

• Line 110: "jet corrections" -> "jet energy corrections"

• Line 110-117: here I think it is better to reverse the logic -> before you have to declare which particles are used in the clustering stage, then the ID selection you are applying and then the corrections in order to have calibrated jets: L1, L2relative, L3 absolute -> "Jets from pileup interactions are suppressed through requirements on the compatibility of the jet’s charged particle constituents with the primary vertex. Jets are required to satisfy basic quality criteria (jet ID), which eliminate, for example, spurious events caused by calorimeter noise.Contributions to an individual jet’s p T from extraneous pp interactions within the same or a nearby bunch crossing (“pileup”) are subtracted using the jet area method described in Ref. [45]. Finally, jet energy corrections are applied as a function of p T and η to account for residual effects of non-uniform detector response"

• Line 121: "the observed result for E_{T}^{miss}" -> "the measured E_{T}^{miss}"

• Line 135: "Isolated electron and muon id is based on the variable" -> "Electron and muon id is based on a relative isolation selection, which is defined as the scalar..."