diff --git a/paper/sec/analysis.tex b/paper/sec/analysis.tex
index 3e85df5041de94c79be9aae0845ed920a8192927..7f450ffaff1f524aae5196ee8b6c0ee151db0155 100755
--- a/paper/sec/analysis.tex
+++ b/paper/sec/analysis.tex
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ approach, backed up by the \emph{scenario
 theory}~\cite{calafiore2006scenario}, that \emph{empirically}
 performs the uncertainty characterization, and provides
 \emph{formal guarantees} on the robustness of the resulting
-estimation. The scenario theory \textcolor{red}{allows to exploit}
+estimation. The scenario theory \textcolor{red}{allows us to exploit}
 %\st{is capable of exploiting} 
 the fact that simulating the taskset 
 execution (with statistical significance) is less computationally 
@@ -102,10 +102,10 @@ scenario approach, and provides probabilistic bounds on the
 uncertainty realization, giving us formal guarantees on the
 design according to the chosen cost function.
 \textcolor{red}{
-The choice of the cost function is anyhow not-univocal. For instance, the 
+The choice of the cost function is anyhow not-univocal. For instance, other viable alternatives would be: (i) the 
 number of sub-sequences of a given length with at least a given number of 
-deadline misses or the shortest subsequence with more than a given number 
-deadline misses would be other viable choices.
+deadline misses, or (ii) the shortest subsequence with more than a given number 
+deadline misses.
 }
 
 \subsection{Formal Guarantees}