Comment on P1900092-v3

• For all initial circulars there should be a reference to the related preliminary notice if one has been sent.
• l49-50, 87-88 etc: the preliminary notice is mentioned. The id of this notice should be given.
• l 80: why giving the FAR in Hz while all the others are expressed only in "1 per X years"?
• Unmodelled transient GCN: cant we provide BW signal vs glitch Bayes factor if available?
• l141 et al: Add a reference for the RAVEN pipeline.
• l219: "SUBJECT: LIGO/Virgo GRB E1122: " implies that the GRB has been found by LIGO/Virgo. One should report in the title the GRB ID given in the GRB circular like for #4 (closed).
• l233 &l259 (#5 (closed) & #6 (closed)): "The online, triggered Burst pipeline (X-pipeline) and triggered CBC pipeline (PyGRB)". This circular is using different wording to say which pipelines has been used. And is using "online" which may be inappropriate. Here is a suggestion: "The X-pipline GRB-unmodelled transient analysis [1] and the PyGRB binary merger analysis [2] made preliminary identification during medium-latency processing of GW candidates associated with the time and sky position of GRB XXXX"
• #5 (closed): cant we give probabilities with and without the GRB association?
• l267: The "model dependent" comment puzzles me as the exclusion NS-NS and NS-BH results are also model dependent...