diff --git a/submission_thesis/CH3_FMEA_criticism/copy.tex b/submission_thesis/CH3_FMEA_criticism/copy.tex
index c3b4158..5954a05 100644
--- a/submission_thesis/CH3_FMEA_criticism/copy.tex
+++ b/submission_thesis/CH3_FMEA_criticism/copy.tex
@@ -21,12 +21,12 @@ our lives safer. This chapter aims to look for the deficiencies in current  FMEA
 and look for ways in which it could be performed better and more efficiently.
 
 A major problem is with the scope of
-examination---i.e. which/how~many components should we check against a particular failure mode---to
+examination---i.e. which/how~many components should be checked against a particular failure mode---to
 apply for FMEA analysis.
 %
-Checking all combinations quickly leads to a state explosion problem:
-defining limits for the number of components to check for against a given {\bc}
-{\fm} could address this.
+Checking all possible combinations of {\fms} against all components quickly leads to a state explosion problem. %:
+%defining limits for the number of components to check for against given {\bc}
+%{\fms} could address this.
 %
 The difficulties of integrating software
 and hardware in FMEA failure models mean that FMEA is showing its age: designed 
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ traceable reasoning) FMEA models are presented.
 Finally we conclude with a list of deficiencies in current FMEA methodologies and present a wish list
 for an improved methodology.
 
-\section{Historical Origins of FMEA: {\bc} {\fm} to system level failure/symptom paradigm}
+\section{Historical Origins of FMEA and the {\bc} {\fm} to system level failure/symptom paradigm}
 
 \subsection{FMEA: {\bc} {\fm} to system level failure modelling}
 FMEA traces it roots to the 1940s when it was used to identify the most costly
@@ -145,12 +145,12 @@ This can be seen as an indicator of the lack of
 cause to effect precision possible when analysing
 large systems using FMEA.
 % 
-Ideally this relationship would be one to one.
+Ideally this relationship would be many ({\bc} {\fms}) to one (system level symptoms).
 %
 This would be beneficial in terms of validating
 precision of analysis, and for by-products of
-the process such as developing diagnostic fault trees from
-FMEA analyses.
+the process such as developing diagnostic fault trees~\cite{cbds}[Ch 6.2] from
+FMEA results.
 
 \section{Comparison Complexity}
 %\section{Reasoning Distance used to measure Comparison Complexity}
@@ -177,16 +177,17 @@ other system level symptoms.
 % Were we to compare the reasoning distance with the theoretical maximum, the sum of all failure
 % modes in a system, multiplied by the number of components in it, we could arrive at a maximum
 % reasoning distance, which we can use as a comparison complexity figure.
-If the reasoning distance is compared with the theoretical maximum, i.e. 
-as defined in equation~\ref{eqn:fmea_single}, this can be used as a comparison complexity figure.
+If a reasoning distance used is compared with the theoretical maximum, i.e. 
+as defined in equation~\ref{eqn:fmea_single}, 
+ comparison complexity figures can be produced.
 %
 % This figure would mean we could compare the maximum number of checks (i.e. exhaustive %rigorous 
 % analysis) with the number actually performed.
-This figure would mean this maximum number of checks (i.e. exhaustive %rigorous 
+Comlexity comparision means this maximum number of checks (i.e. exhaustive %rigorous 
 analysis) could be compared to the number actually performed.
 %
-In effect a yard~stick for the efficiency, in terms of work,
-for a particular analysis technique.
+In effect a yard~stick for the amount of work performed
+for a particular FMEA analysis technique/strategy.
 
 \paragraph{The ideal of exhaustive FMEA (XFMEA).}
 %
diff --git a/submission_thesis/CH4_FMMD/instance_diagram_NONINVAMP.dia b/submission_thesis/CH4_FMMD/instance_diagram_NONINVAMP.dia
index d358fd3..519f56e 100644
Binary files a/submission_thesis/CH4_FMMD/instance_diagram_NONINVAMP.dia and b/submission_thesis/CH4_FMMD/instance_diagram_NONINVAMP.dia differ