Dear Gerry,

     I have a few comments on the spin physics section. 
These are referenced to the version posted last Friday or
so.  There are a couple minor comments, and two more
important ones.

First a couple minor comments:

page 6, half way down  -  "Also, hadron colliders entered
the scene."  I think some slightly different wording is
needed, since obviously the ISR, SppS, and Fermilab were
operating before HERA.

page 6, next to last paragraph and other places  -  we have
said nothing about hyperon polarizations anywhere in the
report.  Do we really want to ignore these nice results?

page 6, next to last line  -  "will unravel the origin of
the transverse spin asymmetries"  This may be a bit strong
and more than we will be able to deliver.

page 22 and 42  -  I don't think STAR will have full jet
coverage from -1 <= eta <= 2 because of the cone of radius
0.4? 0.7? in eta and phi to collect particles.

Next a more important comment on the transversity section:

     I agree that this section appears somewhat too long and
redundant in places.  However, I think somewhere it should
be stated, assuming this is correct, that a) the
measurements are mostly "exploratory" at the moment.  b) the
measurements are going to be done at 200 GeV because cross
sections are larger and ...  c) lots of theoretical progress
is being made.  d) there is no "plan" of how to make good
measurements of the transversity within realistic running
scenarios in the next few years.  e) however, based on the
measurements, such a plan may be formulated before the
completion of our present plan.  f) such a plan may entail
running at sqrt(s) = 500 GeV.

Finally, some comments on the gluon and global analysis
sections (2.4.1 and 2.5):

     I sent around a number of comments on this in the past,
but not to all the members of the committee.  In some sense,
the "spin crisis" has to do with the integral of Delta G(x),
not Delta G(x) itself.  We say very little on this in the
text!  Relating to this point, a) simulations for the STAR
endcap showed that using direct gamma + jet coincidences,
Delta G(x) could be reconstructed (Fig. 14) and an estimate
on the uncertainty for the integral could be made.  Both 200
and 500 GeV results were shown to be essential.  I think
there were a number of simplifying assumptions, and
systematic uncertainties and realistic efficiencies were not
included.  b) similar simulations using only single
inclusives (pions, jets, direct gammas) have not been done
to the best of my knowledge, and thus we cannot say they
alone will be able to constrain the integral any better than
DIS results.  c) based on these facts, we need sufficient
running to measure the direct gamma + jet coincidences.  d)
for the unpolarized case, G(x) for a long time has used DIS
results at low x, and either/both inclusive jets or direct
gammas for larger x.  For example, you could refer to the
particle data tables (PL B592, 1 (2004) - see especially
p169).  We will not have such data for Delta G(x) for the
foreseeable future - (opportunity for eRHIC plug?).  I don't
think any of the published analyses included only single
inclusive measurements, without DIS, to derive G(x).  e) I
think this needs to be made very clear in our writing for
DOE so they understand the basis for our time estimates,
even with the poorer appearing constraints of Fig. 13
compared to Figs. 10, 11.

                         Best wishes,

                            Hal