1.3 par 1, last sentence:  "on-board Rosetta mission." doesn't make sense.  Should 'mission' be replaced with 'spacecraft'?

2.2 bullet 1: typo: "(WAV)" => "(WAC)"

2.3.1.1 #1/#2: rewording and typo: "previous to the arrival to the commet" => "prior to the arrival at the comet"

2.2.1.1: typo: "commet" => "comet".  Found throughout.

2.3.1.7: Should more precise times be provided similar to 2.3.1.6 for consistency?

2.3.2.1 par1: Should it be made clear who developed which models?  Gaskell only participated in SPC from my understanding.

2.3.2.3:  It might be good to have the bolded subsection headers on the same page as the section.  For instance "Details about the MSPCD SHAP2 files" header is on one page, while the entire section is on the next.

2.3.3 par 1: typo: "This shape models" => "These shape models" OR "This shape model"

2.3.3 par 2: The references here are not full.  Only gives author, year, and title, but not publisher.  Is that okay?

2.4.1 last bullet: We should shy away from including web links (or don't let Anne R. see them).  Instead should state who created or currently managed the tool kit, i.e. PDS's NAIF.  Maybe Tony F. will have some good wording here.

3.1.1.1: Side note: DLR does not fully follow the file_name format.  SHAPx_yyyy_CART part is different.  Ex: cg_dlr_spg_shap4s_1m.wrl

3.3.3: EXTRAS dir does not maintain a similar directory structure as DATA dir as described here.

3.3.3 par 2, last sentence: typo: "to read this files." => "to read these files."

3.3.4 bullet 7 (ref.cat): typo: "per reviewed" => "peer reviewed"

3.3.4 bullet 8 (soft.cat): typo: "SFTWARE.CAT" => "SOFTWARE.CAT".  As an aside, this file will not be found in the PDS copy the data set.

3.3.4 last par: typo: "DOCINF.TXT" => "DOCINFO.TXT"

3.3.5: The SCIENCE_INDEX.TAB is not described here even though it is referenced in another part of this document.

4: Should there be a section on the DLR SPG models?

4.1 par 3: suggest putting this on the next page to be with its bullet points.