Here are the paper review history for 2012 Lambda D_TT @200GeV
The reviews are listed here as the time line.

Part I: PWGC review
1. Paper draft version 3.1

     This version is the starting point. It is written before the cross-ratio method was used in the analysis.

    One big update in the new version is the application of cross-ratio method (thanks Carl and other colleagues):

1. Fig. 3 & 4 were replaced with new results. The systematic errors in Fig. 4 are significantly improved after removing contribution from luminosities.   
   
2. updated Eq. (3) and the whole paragraph around it, and next paragraph. 
   
3. paragraph on systematic uncertainty was updated, together with revision of other sentences.
   
4. D_TT values in abstract and summary, were also updated. 
5. Here are answers to Oleg's some other questions/comments to version 3.1:
   
   Q1: How is this related to D_TT? I have not yet checked the E704 paper, but is there a reference to the chosen formalism/convention that you can cite?
   A1: D_NN is the transverse spin transfer alone the normal direction of the Lambda production plane, so beam polarisation is also required to be projected to this normal direction.  D_TT is the full spin transfer with rotation considered, not used for this sense before.
   
   Q2: Wasn't there a table with the cuts? Or am I confusing this with the D_LL analysis? It's also not entirely clear what was done here. Did you find the figure of merit? Or just push the background to below 10%?
   A2:  Yes, we put the cuts and counts in one table now.  The cuts were pushed to keep the background <10%.  Significance study was once done for D_LL, and D_TT (partial statistics), for cuts study.  The current one is a good choice, and possible difference is very small.
   
   Q3: Is this correlation only done for the two leading jets? Is there a momentum or energy threshold for the jet?
   A3:  All the reconstructed jets with  pT larger than 5 GeV/c to make the correlation, as jets axis (substitute of parton) is used to get the rotation angle in determining cosin_theta*.
   
   Q4: Does that mean that the distribution indeed looks similar (Fig.2) ?
   A4: The cos^{theta*} vs. the invariant mass distributions for Lambda and anti-Lambda really look similar.  Both plots are shown in analysis note (Figure 4.1)
   
   Q5: The dominant systematic is the relative luminosity here. Why is this so large btw? And they are fully correlated among all points and should be indicated separately.
   A5:  It is large because no scalers were saved for transverse spin runs, so non-Lambda events were used to calculate relative luminosity. Now cross-ratio method was applied,and luminosity dependence was removed, thus no this part systematic any more.
   
   Q6: I would describe the detector components first and then move on to the trigger.
   A6: Done
   
   Q7: Does this take into account the systematic uncertainty and all correlations?
   A7:  Now the Chi2 values are also updated with updated D_TT, 9.5/6, with systematic errors included.  

Part II: GPC review
1. Paper draft version 5.6
    This is the first version discussed in GPC and generally it has been a good shape. We update it to version 6.1 following suggestions on figure styles and sentences. A brief list of key update:
    1) Fig. 4: the error box for systematic uncertainty changed to open box.
    2) Eq. 3: we prefer not to add  ^raw(cosin_theta*) in the sense to show the general equation to extract D_TT . Fig. 3 was added "raw" as suggested.
    3) Added definition for N(sigma) and one reference accordingly in the caption of Tab.1
    4) The sentence around Line 404-408 is updated accordingly.

    The reply of the comments and questions based on version 5.6 are shown here.

    Q1: Line 122: why surprising?
    A1: We mean the measurement results are not expected.

    Q2: Line 155: why not use p^p^?
    A2: As to measure spin transfer, only one beam needs to be polarized.

    Q3: Line 171: why not use alpha_anti-Lambda = -0.71 +- 0.08 ?
    A3: We choose not to use direct data on alpha for anti-Lambda (-0.71 +- 0.08) due to larger error, but rather take the CP conservation as tested in PDG with much better precision.

    Q4: Line 241: distance -> angle?
    A4: We think angle here is not precise what we mean. Now changed to "radius".

    Q5: Line 381: Only positive eta?
    A5: Here does mean the positive eta range only. 

2. Paper draft version 6.1