works as we expect. This is non trivial, given the differences between  and , which in turn result in different short-distance MC@NLO cross sections, as discussed previously. We set $m_W=80.4$ GeV, $\Gamma_W=2.14$ GeV, and use CTEQ6.6 [@Nadolsky:2008zw] PDFs. Our default scale choices are ${\mu_{{\scriptscriptstyle}F}}={\mu_{{\scriptscriptstyle}R}}={m_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}$, where ${m_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}$ is the transverse mass of the $W$. When reconstructing jets, we adopt the $k_T$-jet-finding algorithm of ref. [@Catani:1993hr], with .

In each of the plots we present in figs. \[fig:pt\]–\[fig:Dely\], we display three histograms. The solid (black) histograms are the results of MC@NLO with (which we shall call ) i.e. what has been computed in this paper. The dotted (red) histograms are the results of MC@NLO with (which we shall call ). Finally, the dashed (blue) histograms are the results obtained with  standalone. When using  for showering hard events, we set MSTP(81)=0 and MSTP(91)=0, which corresponds to switching off multiple interactions and primordial ${k_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}$ respectively. We switch off matrix element corrections by setting MSTP(68)=0, which also forces the maximum virtuality in the shower to be equal to the vector boson mass, when standalone generation is performed. On the other hand, hard subprocess events generated by   are given to  in the standard Les Houches format 