C. Giusti, F.D. Pacati
Nucl. Phys. A615 (1997) 373.

The improvements about their previous works are related to the proper treatments of the antisymmetry and the spin isospin algebra which allows for the idetification of the angular momentum of the final state. Also the computer code has changed with a Monte Carlo algorithm.
Missing energy and missing momentum are defined in eqs. (17) and (18). With respect to the pure shell model approach the missing energy is:
E_2m=omega - e_p1 - e_p2 = - e_h1 - e_h2
The kinematics is described at pag. 381 the angle gamma1 is equal to our theta2 while gamma2 is on the the side of the plane corresponding to our 360-theta1.

The calculations are only on (e,e'2p). The Delta contribution has been added considering the dinamical operator of:
Th. Wilbois, P. Wilhelm and H. Arenhoevel, Phys. Rev. C54 (1996) 1423.
P. Wilhelm et al, Z. Phys. A359 (1997) 467

The final states identified are:
0+ for the (1p1/2)^{-2} emission
2+ and 1+ for the (1p1/2,1p3/2)^{-1} emission
2+ and 0+ for the (1p3/2)^{-2} emission
These are our states, but why their approach identify them ?

The angular distribution changes with respect to the final state. Also the relative Delta contribution changes a lot. Relatively small for 0+ (Fig.1) larger for 2+ (Fig.2) rather big for 1+ (Fig.3). This contribution changes a lot if the dinamic or static Delta propagators are used (Fig.6). In pag. 386 it is stated that below the pion emission threshold the various Delta prescriptions produce similar results.

The use of different correlations gives rather different results. (fig. 5).

I believe that the problem of the spurios contribution is not gone.