discussed in [@Hamilton:2006ms], applying the matrix element corrections has the effect of softening both the $\Delta R $ and $\log \left(y_{32} \right) $ distributions. This is due to the soft matrix element correction rejecting a portion of the high $p_T$ emissions generated by the parton shower. The magnitude of the observed effect illustrates the importance of matching the parton shower to the exact matrix element in high $p_T$ regions. As expected, the distributions generated using the POWHEG style and matrix element corrections are very similar although, for both variables, the POWHEG style correction yields slightly harder distributions. The discrepancies between the distributions are the result of a number of subtle differences between the POWHEG and matrix element correction schemes. Firstly in the matrix element correction approach, events in the dead region are generated using the fixed-order real-emission matrix element only, without any Sudakov suppression, and subsequent showering of the resulting configuration is simulated starting from the $1 \rightarrow 3 $ process. However, in the POWHEG approach the hardest emission in the shower is reinterpreted such that the conventional parton shower instead begins from the Born hard configuration. The scale of the hardest emission is generated, and then the shower proceeds 