diff --git a/component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex b/component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex
index 506157d..387f36e 100644
--- a/component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex
+++ b/component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex
@@ -725,6 +725,8 @@ component, with the $OK$ state, as a universal set $\Omega$, where
 all sets within $\Omega$ are partitioned.
 Figure \ref{fig:partitioncfm} shows a partitioned set representing 
 component failure modes $\{ B_1 ... B_8, OK \}$ obeying unitary state conditions.
+Because the subsets of $\Omega$ are partitionned we can say these 
+failure modes are unitary state.
 
 \begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
@@ -740,11 +742,19 @@ Suppose that we have a component that can fail simultaneously
 with more than one failure mode.
 This would make it seemingly impossible to model as  `unitary state'.
 
+
 \paragraph{De-composition of complex component.}
 There are two ways in which we can deal with this.
 We could consider the component a composite
 of two simpler components, and model their interaction to
 create a derived component.
+\ifthenelse {\boolean{paper}}
+{
+This technique is outside the scope of this paper.
+}
+{
+This technique is dealt with in descriptions of the FMMD process in chapter \ref{fmmd_complex_comp}.
+}
 
 \begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
diff --git a/component_failure_modes_definition/paper.tex b/component_failure_modes_definition/paper.tex
index abbeb88..58893a7 100644
--- a/component_failure_modes_definition/paper.tex
+++ b/component_failure_modes_definition/paper.tex
@@ -40,5 +40,4 @@
 \end{document}
 
 
-\begin{document}