Review.md

@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ Remember that `alpha=1.0` posteriors should look bad for these events - they wou
 | GW200219A | Krishnendu | [link](O3b-Results/GW200219A) |  | <br> $`\chi_{eff}`$ posterior is different, do we understand this?  **TB**: chi_eff posteriors for bilby-liv look to me very similar to other ones before reweighting. After reweighting it is broader, but it should not be compared with lal posterior (during o3 only 1D A_alpha posterior was reweighted)|
 | GW200202A | Krishnendu | [link](O3b-Results/GW200202A) |  | <br> $`\chi_{eff}`$ posterior is different, do we understand this? <br> <br> I think it will be also good to compare the prior distributions used for LI and Bilby runs to see these differences are caused by the difference in prior. |
 | S191109a | Naresh | [link](O3b-Results/S191109a) |  | <br> Slight difference is observed in the distributions of chirp mass, mass ratio and chi effective in all of these runs. Your comments addressing these differences would be helpful. |
-| S191129a | Naresh | [link](O3b-Results/S191129a) |  |  |
+| S191129a | Naresh | [link](O3b-Results/S191129a) |  | <br> Slight difference is observed in the distributions of chirp mass, mass ratio and chi effective in some of the runs. Upon checking, source frame chirp mass and other spin parameter distributions, tend to agree.  |
 | S191215a | Naresh | [link](O3b-Results/S191215a) |  |  |
 | S200129a | Naresh | [link](O3b-Results/S200129a) |  |  |