diff --git a/Manuscript/FCI2.tex b/Manuscript/FCI2.tex
index f1474fa..be0ce84 100644
--- a/Manuscript/FCI2.tex
+++ b/Manuscript/FCI2.tex
@@ -595,37 +595,36 @@ $^i${0-0 energies from Ref.~\citenum{Jud84c}.}
 \end{table}
 
 \titou{HERE}
-For acetone, one should clearly distinguish the valence ES, for which both methodological and basis set effects are small, and the Rydberg transitions that, not only are very
-sensitive to the basis set, but  are upshifted by ca.~$0.04$ eV with {\CCSDTQ} as compared to {\CCT} and {\CCSDT}. For this compound, the 1996 {\CASPT} transition energies of Merch\'an and coworkers listed on the 
-r.h.s. of Table \ref{Table-4} are quite clearly too small, especially for the three valence ES. \cite{Mer96b} As expected, this error can be partially ascribed to the details of the calculations, as the Urban group obtained  {\CASPT}  
-excitation energies of $4.40$, $4.09$ and $6.22$ eV for the $^1A_2$, $^3A_2$, and $^3A_1$ ES, \cite{Pas12} in much better agreement with ours. Their estimates for the three $n \ra 3p$ transitions of $7.52$, $7.57$, and $7.53$ eV 
-for the $^1A_2$, $^1A_1$, and $^1B_2$ ES also systematically fall within $0.10$ eV of our current CC values, whereas for these three ES, the current {\NEV} values are quite clearly too large.
+For acetone, one should clearly distinguish the valence ES, for which both methodological and basis set effects are small, and the Rydberg transitions that both very
+sensitive to the basis set, and upshifted by ca.~$0.04$ eV with {\CCSDTQ} as compared to {\CCT} and {\CCSDT}. For this compound, the 1996 {\CASPT} transition energies of Merch\'an and coworkers listed on the 
+right panel of Table \ref{Table-4} are clearly too low, especially for the three valence ES. \cite{Mer96b} As expected, this error can be partially ascribed to the \titou{details of the calculations}, as the Urban group obtained {\CASPT}  
+excitation energies of $4.40$, $4.09$ and $6.22$ eV for the $^1A_2$, $^3A_2$, and $^3A_1$ ES, \cite{Pas12} in much better agreement with ours. Their estimates of the three $n \ra 3p$ transitions, $7.52$, $7.57$, and $7.53$ eV 
+for the $^1A_2$, $^1A_1$, and $^1B_2$ ES, also systematically fall within $0.10$ eV of our current CC values, whereas for these three ES, the current {\NEV} values are clearly too large.
 
-In contrast to acetone, both valence and Rydberg ES of thioacetone  are rather insensitive to the CC expansion, as illustrated by the maximal discrepancies of $\pm$0.02 eV between the {\CCT} and {\CCSDTQ} results
-with the {\Pop} basis set. While the lowest $n \ra \pis$ transition of both spin symmetries are rather insensitive to the selected basis set, all other states need quite large bases to be correctly described (Table S4).  
-As expected our theoretical vertical transition energies show the same ranking but are systematically larger than the available experimental 0-0 energies.
+In contrast to acetone, both valence and Rydberg ES of thioacetone  are rather insensitive to the CC expansion, as illustrated by the maximal discrepancies of $\pm$0.02 eV between the {\CCT}/{\Pop} and {\CCSDTQ}/{\Pop} results. 
+While the lowest $n \ra \pis$ transition of both spin symmetries are rather basis set insensitive, all the other states need quite large one-electron bases to be correctly described (Table S4).  
+As expected, our theoretical vertical transition energies show the same ranking but are systematically larger than the available experimental 0-0 energies.
 
-For the isoleectronic isobutene, we considered two singlet Rydberg and one triplet valence ES. For all three cases, we note very nice agreement between  {\CCT} and {\CCSDT} results for all considered basis sets,  the
-CC results being also within or very close to the {\FCI} estimates with Pople's basis set. The match with the {\CCSD} results of Caricato and coworkers, \cite{Car10} is also very satisfying. 
+For the isoleectronic isobutene molecule, we have considered two singlet Rydberg state and one triplet valence ES. For these three cases, we note, for each basis, a very nice agreement between {\CCT} and {\CCSDT}, the
+CC results being also very close to the {\FCI} estimates obtained with the Pople basis set. The similarity with the {\CCSD} results of Caricato and coworkers \cite{Car10} is also very satisfying. 
 
-For the three remaining compounds, namely, cyanoformaldehyde, propynal, and thiopropynal, we report low-lying valence transitions all showing a largely dominant single excitation character. The basis set
-effects are clearly under control (they are only significant for the second $^1A''$ ES of cyanoformaldehyde) and we could not detect any variation larger than $0.03$ eV between the  {\CCT} and {\CCSDT} values for
-a given basis, hinting that the CC values should be close to the spot, as confirmed by the {\FCI} data.
+For the three remaining compounds, namely, cyanoformaldehyde, propynal, and thiopropynal, we report low-lying valence transitions with a definite single excitation character. The basis set
+effects are clearly under control (they are only significant for the second $^1A''$ ES of cyanoformaldehyde) and we could not detect any variation larger than $0.03$ eV between the {\CCT} and {\CCSDT} values for
+a given basis, alluding that the CC values are very accurate.
+This is further confirmed by the {\FCI} data.
 
 \subsubsection{Intermediate conclusions}
 \label{sec-ic}
 
-As we have seen for the 15 four-atom molecules considered here, we found extremely consistent transition energies between the tested CC approaches and the {\FCI} estimates in the vast majority of cases, 
-Importantly, we confirm the previous conclusions obtained on smaller compounds:\cite{Loo18a} i) {\CCSDTQ} values systematically fall within, or are extremely close from, the {\FCI} error bar, 
-ii) both {\CCT} and {\CCSDT} are also highly trustable when the considered ES does not show a very strong double excitation character.  Indeed, considering all the 54 ``single transitions'' 
-for which {\CCSDTQ} estimates could be obtained (only excluding the lowest $^1A_g$ ES of butadiene and glyoxal), we determined trifling mean signed errors (MSE of 0.00 eV), tiny 
+As we have seen for the 15 four-atom molecules considered here, we found extremely consistent transition energies between CC and {\FCI} estimates in the vast majority of the cases. 
+Importantly, we confirm our previous conclusions obtained on smaller compounds: \cite{Loo18a} i) {\CCSDTQ} values systematically fall within (or are extremely close to) the {\FCI} error bar, 
+ii) both {\CCT} and {\CCSDT} are also highly trustable when the considered ES does not exhibit a strong double excitation character.  Indeed, considering the 54 ``single'' excitations 
+for which {\CCSDTQ} estimates could be obtained (only excluding the lowest $^1A_g$ ES of butadiene and glyoxal), we determined negligible mean signed errors (MSE of $0.00$ eV), tiny 
 MAE ($0.01$ and $0.02$ eV), and small maximal deviations ($0.05$ and $0.04$ eV) for {\CCT} and {\CCSDT}, respectively.   This clearly indicates that these two approaches provide chemically-accurate 
-estimates (errors $< 1$ kcal.mol$^{-1}$ or $0.043$ eV) for most electronic transitions. Interestingly, some of us have shown that {\CCT} also provides chemically-accurate 0-0 energies as compared 
-to experimental values for most valence transitions. \cite{Loo18b,Loo19a,Sue19} When comparing the {\NEV} and {\CCT} ({\CCSDT}) results obtained with {\AVTZ} for all transitions in four-atom molecules, 
-one obtains a mean signed deviation of $+0.09$ ($+0.09$) eV and a mean absolute deviation of $0.11$ ($0.12$) eV, considering all 91 (65) ES for which comparisons are possible, again excluding only 
-the lowest $^1A_g$ states of butadiene and glyoxal. Although the error cannot be fully ascribed to the multi-reference method, that is additionally dependent of the selected active space, it seems to 
-indicate that  {\NEV}, as applied here, has a slight tendency to overestimate the transition energies. This contrasts with the {\CASPT} approach that, from the comparisons discussed above, 
-generally undershoots the transition energies.
+estimates (errors below $1$ kcal.mol$^{-1}$ or $0.043$ eV) for most electronic transitions. Interestingly, some of us have shown that {\CCT} also provides chemically-accurate 0-0 energies as compared 
+to experimental values for most valence transitions. \cite{Loo18b,Loo19a,Sue19} When comparing the {\NEV} and {\CCT} ({\CCSDT}) results obtained with {\AVTZ} for the 91 (65) ES for which comparisons are possible (again excluding only the lowest $^1A_g$ states of butadiene and glyoxal), 
+one obtains a mean signed deviation of $+0.09$ ($+0.09$) eV and a mean absolute deviation of $0.11$ ($0.12$) eV. 
+This seems to indicate that {\NEV}, as applied here, has a slight tendency to overestimate the transition energies. This contrasts with {\CASPT} that is known to generally underestimate transition energies, as further illustrated and discussed above.
 
 \subsection{Five-atom molecules}
 
@@ -688,7 +687,7 @@ $^c${MR-CC results from Ref.~\citenum{Li10c};}
 $^d${{\AT} results from Ref.~\citenum{Hol15};}
 $^e${{\CCT} results from Ref.~\citenum{Sch17};}
 $^f${Various experiments summarized in Ref.~\citenum{Wan00};}
-$^g${Electron impact from Ref.~\citenum{Vee76b}: for the $^1A_1$ state two values (6.44 and 6.61 eV) are reported, whereas for the two lowest triplet states, 3.99 eV and 5.22 eV values can be found in Ref.~\citenum{Fli76};}
+$^g${Electron impact from Ref.~\citenum{Vee76b}: for the $^1A_1$ state two values (6.44 and 6.61 eV) are reported, whereas for the two lowest triplet states, Two values (3.99 eV and 5.22 eV) can be found in Ref.~\citenum{Fli76};}
 $^h${{\NEV} results from Ref.~\citenum{Pas06c};}
 $^i${Best estimate from Ref.~\citenum{Chr99}, based on CC calculations;}
 $^j${XMS-{\CASPT} results from Ref.~\citenum{Hei19};}
@@ -768,7 +767,7 @@ $^c${MR-MP results from Ref.~\citenum{Nak96};}
 $^d${{\CCT} results from Ref.~\citenum{Sch17};}
 $^e${Electron impact from Ref.~\citenum{Fru79};}
 $^f${Gas phase absorption from Ref.~\citenum{McD91b};}
-$^g${Energy loss from Ref.~\citenum{McD85} for the two valence state; two-photon resonant experiment from Ref.~\citenum{Sab92} for the $^1A_2$ Rydberg ES;}
+$^g${Energy loss from Ref.~\citenum{McD85} for the two valence states; two-photon resonant experiment from Ref.~\citenum{Sab92} for the $^1A_2$ Rydberg ES;}
 $^h${{\CASPT} results from Ref.~\citenum{Ser96b};}
 $^i${{\CCT} results from Ref.~\citenum{Sil10c};}
 $^j${Gas-phase experimental estimates from Ref.~\citenum{Dev06};}
@@ -777,7 +776,7 @@ $^l${SAC-CI results from Ref.~\citenum{Wan01};}
 $^m${CCSDR(3) results from Ref.~\citenum{Pas07};}%, this work also contains {\NEV} estimates;}
 $^n${TBE from Ref.~\citenum{Hol14}, based on EOM-CCSD for singlet and ADC(2) for triplets;}
 $^o${0-0 energies from Ref.~\citenum{Dil72};}
-$^p${0-0 energies from Ref.~\citenum{Var82} for the singlets and energy loss experiment  from Ref.~\citenum{Hab03} for the triplet ES;}
+$^p${0-0 energies from Ref.~\citenum{Var82} for the singlets and energy loss experiment  from Ref.~\citenum{Hab03} for the triplets;}
 $^q${0-0 energies from Ref.~\citenum{Hol14}.}
 \end{footnotesize}
 \end{flushleft}
@@ -854,7 +853,7 @@ $^b${{\CCT} results from Ref.~\citenum{Chr96c};}
 $^c${SAC-CI results from Ref.~\citenum{Li07b};}
 $^d${RASPT2(18,18) results from Ref.~\citenum{Sha19};}
 $^e${Electron impact from Ref.~\citenum{Doe69};}
-$^f${Jet-cooled experiment from Ref.~\citenum{Hir91} for the two lowest states, multi-photon experiments  from Refs.~ \citenum{Joh76} and \citenum{Joh83} for the Rydberg states.}
+$^f${Jet-cooled experiment from Ref.~\citenum{Hir91} for the two lowest states, multi-photon experiments from Refs.~\citenum{Joh76} and \citenum{Joh83} for the Rydberg states.}
 \end{footnotesize}
 \end{flushleft}
 \end{table}
@@ -922,14 +921,14 @@ $^a${{\CASPT} results from Ref.~\citenum{Web99};}
 $^b${{\STEOM} results from Ref.~\citenum{Noo99};}
 $^c${SAC-CI results from Ref.~\citenum{Li07b};}
 $^d${{\CCT} results from Ref.~\citenum{Sch17};}
-$^e${Dip spectroscopy from Ref.~\citenum{Oku90} ($B_{3u}$ and $B_{2g}$ states) and EEL from Ref.~\citenum{Wal91} (other states);}
+$^e${\titou{Dip} spectroscopy from Ref.~\citenum{Oku90} ($B_{3u}$ and $B_{2g}$ states) and EEL from Ref.~\citenum{Wal91} (other states);}
 $^f${UV max from Ref.~\citenum{Bol84};}
 $^g${{\CASPT} results from Ref.~\citenum{Rub99};}
 $^h${Ext-{\STEOM} results from Ref.~\citenum{Noo00};}
 $^i${GVVPT2 results from Ref.~\citenum{Dev08};}
 $^j${{\NEV} results  from Ref.~\citenum{Ang09};}
 $^k${{\CCT} results from Ref.~\citenum{Sil10c};}
-$^l${From Ref.~\citenum{Pal97}, the singlets are from EEL, but for the 4.97 and 5.92 eV values that are from VUV; the triplets are from EEL, and other triplet peaks are mentioned at 4.21, 4.6, and 5.2 eV but not identified;}
+$^l${From Ref.~\citenum{Pal97}, the singlets are from EEL, except for the $4.97$ and $5.92$ eV values that are from VUV; the triplets are from EEL, and other triplet peaks are mentioned at $4.21$, $4.6$, and $5.2$ eV but not identified;}
 $^m${all these doubly ES have a $(n,n \ra \pis, \pis)$ character.}
 \end{footnotesize}
 \end{flushleft}
@@ -1089,7 +1088,7 @@ $^d${EOM-CCSD({$\tilde{{T}}$}) from Ref.~\citenum{Del97b};}
 $^e${UV max from Ref.~\citenum{Bol84};}
 $^f${EEL from Ref.~\citenum{Lin15};}
 $^g${{\CASPT}  from Ref.~\citenum{Oli05};}
-$^h${CC3-ext. from Ref.~\citenum{Sil10c}.}
+$^h${CC3-ext.~from Ref.~\citenum{Sil10c}.}
 \end{footnotesize}
 \end{flushleft}
 \end{table}
@@ -1381,12 +1380,12 @@ Triazine			&$^1A_1'' (\Val; n \ra \pis)$						&		& 88.3 & 4.72	& {\CCSDT}/AVTZ
 \begin{flushleft}\begin{footnotesize}\begin{singlespace}
   \vspace{-0.6 cm}
 $^a${
-Method A: {\CCSDT}/{\AVTZ} value corrected by the difference between   {\CCSDTQ}/{\AVDZ} and  {\CCSDT}/{\AVDZ} results;
-Method B: {\CCSDT}/{\AVTZ} value corrected by the difference between   {\CCSDTQ}/{\Pop} and  {\CCSDT}/{\Pop} results;
-Method C: {\CCT}/{\AVTZ} value corrected by the difference between   {\CCSDTQ}/{\Pop} and {\CCT}/{\Pop} results;
-Method D: {\CCT}/{\AVTZ}  value corrected by the difference between {\CCSDT}/{\AVDZ}  and {\CCT}/{\AVDZ} results;
-Method E: {\CCT}/{\AVTZ}  value corrected by the difference between {\CCSDT}/{\Pop}  and {\CCT}/{\Pop} results;
-Method F: {exCI}/{\AVDZ} value (from Ref.~\citenum{Loo19c}) corrected by the difference between   {\CCSDT}/{\AVTZ} and {\CCSDT}/{\AVDZ} results.
+Method A: {\CCSDT}/{\AVTZ} value corrected by the difference between {\CCSDTQ}/{\AVDZ} and {\CCSDT}/{\AVDZ};
+Method B: {\CCSDT}/{\AVTZ} value corrected by the difference between {\CCSDTQ}/{\Pop} and {\CCSDT}/{\Pop};
+Method C: {\CCT}/{\AVTZ} value corrected by the difference between {\CCSDTQ}/{\Pop} and {\CCT}/{\Pop};
+Method D: {\CCT}/{\AVTZ} value corrected by the difference between {\CCSDT}/{\AVDZ} and {\CCT}/{\AVDZ};
+Method E: {\CCT}/{\AVTZ} value corrected by the difference between {\CCSDT}/{\Pop} and {\CCT}/{\Pop};
+Method F: {\FCI}/{\AVDZ} value (from Ref.~\citenum{Loo19c}) corrected by the difference between {\CCSDT}/{\AVTZ} and {\CCSDT}/{\AVDZ}.
 }
 \end{singlespace}\end{footnotesize}\end{flushleft}