|Para. S7: Presuming that dose coefficients are not uncertain for the purpose of assessment is conceptually acceptable within the expert community. Disputes are expected, however, on the determination of compliance if we recall that there are factor of a few in the age-specific dose coefficients as shown in the Appendix A of the document.
Para. S16: It is stated that the representative individual is identified such that the probability is less than about 5% that a person drawn at random from the hypothetical population will receive an annual dose exceeding the dose constraint. This description is questionable because the doses to the representative individual are not necessarily exceeding a dose constraint for a certain circumstance. Are there any problems if we express it like ".... will receive dose exceeding the doses to the representative individual"?
Para. 23: The expression "the highest dose" may cause confusing. Prefer to use " the approximately highest dose" or "doses near to the highest dose".
Para. 35: "compliance with the Commission's dose constraints" should read "compliance with the dose constraints" because many specific constraints are deployed by the competent authorities.
Para. 61: It is not clear to what extent an extreme habit is excluded or included. Examples if provided will be helpful.
Para. 63: An example basis of adoption of the 95th percentile is provided here. Since this criteria is important and subjects to disputes, more elaborations on the basis including statistical inference are desirable if possible at all.
Para. 81: Do these statements mean that ICRP will retain all the detailed age-specific dose coefficients, after re-calculations taking into account those changes in the radiation weighting factors and the tissue weighting factors and updated information and models for internal dosimetry, for use in some particular situations such as retrospective assessment? If the case, confusions may arise.