appears to be shifted to the left — a shift to the right was accomplished by modifying the optical potential. This modified potential, denoted MCO in Ref. [@vdSteenhoven88a], was intended to simulate channel coupling in the final state but our more detailed analysis of channel coupling [@Kelly99a] gave much smaller effects for this reaction; hence, we regard this modification of the optical potential to be somewhat [*ad hoc*]{}. Finally, van der Steenhoven [[*et al.* ]{}]{}inserted an enhancement factor for transverse components of the current operator and adjusted that factor to fit the peak for negative $p_m$. Applying this factor without further adjustment does provide a reasonably accurate fit to the reduced cross section for parallel kinematics.

We have not attempted to tune this fit because we doubt that it is really possible to distinguish between variations of the overlap function, the current operator, and the final-state interactions using these data. Nor does it appear possible to fit the low $Q^2$ data for both parallel and quasiperpendicular kinematics simultaneously using unique overlap functions and global optical potentials fit to proton elastic scattering. The relativistic wave functions provide goods fits to the $p_m$ dependence of the data for quasiperpendicular kinematics even if 