making it clearer

component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex

@@ -375,6 +375,8 @@ be less.
 What must actually be done is to subtract the number of component `internal combinations'
 from the cardinality constrain powerset number.
 
+\subsubsection{Example: Two Component functional group \\ cardinality Constraint of 2}
+
 Thus were we to have a simple functional group with two components R and T, of which
 $$FM(R) = \{R_o, R_s\}$$ and $$FM(T) = \{T_o, T_s, T_h\}$$.
 
@@ -426,6 +428,10 @@ And by inspection
 
 $$ |\mathcal{P}_{2}(FG_cfg)| = 11 $$
 
+
+\subsubsection{Establishing Formulae for unitary state failure mode \\
+cardinality calculation}
+
 The cardinality constrained powerset equation \ref{eqn:ccps} corrected for 
 unitary state failure modes can be 
 written as a general formula (see equation \ref{eqn:correctedccps}), where C is a set of the components (indexed by j where J 
@@ -446,10 +452,10 @@ Expanding the combination in equation \ref{eqn:correctedccps}
  \label{eqn:correctedccps2}
 \end{equation}
 
-The equation \ref{eqn:correctedccps2} is now useful for an automated tool that
+Equation \ref{eqn:correctedccps2} is useful for an automated tool that
 would verify that a `N' simultaneous failures model had been completly covered.
 By knowing how many test case should be covered, and checking the cardinality
-associated with the test cases complete coverage could be confirmed.
+associated with the test cases complete coverage would be confirmed.
 
 %$$ \#\mathcal{P}_{cc} S = \sum^{k}_{1..cc}  \big[ \frac{\#S!}{k!(\#S-k)!}  - \sum_{j} (\#C_{j} \choose cc \big]  $$