--- I tried to address all the raised questions in the slides. My (shorter) answers are below.

1) Addressed question to the pT shift for the integrated mb yields based on a simple exponential function. Result looks reasonable, but need to check if the equation for calculating correction factor is correct.

--- indeed it was a typo

2) The  last bin for the pT spectrum is not significant, suggest use upper limit.

--- I'll do that when I edit the plot for the poster

3) Updated R_AA with including systematic uncerainties, questions raised for the detailed systematic uncerainties study.

--- Included plots used to extract systematics into the attached slides

4) Question about the acceptance correction uncertainty. Anthony confirms that the acceptance correction uncertainties matter, but do not expect change by species.

5) The details for factorization statistical fluctuation and shape uncertainties are required. Robert agreed to provide some slides for the details. Suggest use the shape extracted from mb 0-60% for other centralities.

--- Included plots used to extract systematics into the attached slides, shortly described how it was done, will expand later in a note

6) The signal was fitted starting from 8 GeV, double-exponetinal function for the background starts from 6.5 GeV. Need update the plot on the poster and check the uncertainties of the background estimation by varying the fitting mass range.

--- The signal was also fitted from 6.5 GeV, sorry for the misinformation. i now vary it between 6 and 7. (Below 6 the exponential shape of the background breaks down)

7) The origin of the broad Gaussian distribution under the dE/dx distributions is not clear. Need to see in log scale and see its dependence on pT. For the given 4.5-5.5 GeV/c bin, it is not likely from the proton contribution. The uncertainties are from the deviations between the linear functions fitting to the points of 3-Gauss and 4-Gauss. Zhenyu asked why not use the difference between the data points themselves.

--- I was suggested that it is merged pions. However, it wes deliberately left vary freely because I would have liked to address the uncertainty in the fit method. Now I use Guannan's photonic electron fits. The method is used only as a x-check and therefore the errors are not important. Note that my result shows a good matxh with Guannan's.

8) Need to confirm if the tower matching distribution unit is in delta-phi and delta-eta, or cm. The correct uncertainty should be defined as the following (for example):
difference between a) and b)
a) data with cut 0.035 / efficiency from embedding with cut 0.035
b) data with cut 0.045 / efficiency from embedding with cut 0.045

--- It is indeed R^2=delta(eta)^2+delta(phi)^2. I take the average of the simulation and the data as correction and their half difference as error. The sim:data ratio is very similar no matter if I take the cut 0.04 or0.035 or 0.045, see slides.

9) Detailed comparison between embedding and data forthe ADC, triggered ADC distributions is needed.
--- I did a more detailed study comparing ADC0 and DCMADC. I confirmed I do not suffer from the issue that Barbara does from. I could not run the trigger simulation for embedding (keeps crashing), used "pseudo-simulation" to convert DCMADC to ADC0. I found that indeed not the best ADC0 value was used for cut, this slightly changed the matching efficiency correction. 

10) nSigmaE uncertainty should not be cancelled when calculating R_AA, since different calibrations were performed in different year runs.

--- now included in the RAA

11) The Upsilon statistics are not good to determine which effect, mass smearing or shift, is dominant. Need detailed study on J/psi signal and use the conclusion/result to constrain Upsilon signal.