1Both readings r[aḫ] (Heeßel) and r[a] (Wee) seem epigraphically impossible. ri[š is epigraphically very likely, and it fits well with the verb in the next line. The verb ṣarāšu G is very poorly attested (the only lexical attestation is MSL SS 1 p. 97 l. 6 and note ad loc., [giš.x]-zé-àm-bar = i-ṣu ṣa-ri-iš).
2The readings ša₂-ra-ḫu? (Heeßel) and ša₂-ra+ri (Wee) should be discarded. The last sign is a clear ŠU₂.
3Lines 4-5 contain a previously unrecognized vertical quotation from Erimḫuš II 310-313 (MSL 17 43): igi-su₄ = zarriqu; igi-su₄-su₄ = zarriqtu; su₄ = pelû; su₄-su₄-a = pelītu. In the lexical tradition pelû is equated with SU₄, but the equation SÙ = pelû is attested in the commentary TCL 6 17 r 17 (CCP 3.1.8.A.a).
4As kindly pointed out by N. Veldhuis, in this entry Erimhuš quotes from Sª A. SU₃ is not unknown for Sum "red" ("iridescent" when used for eyes): in OB and Ur III the spelling of that word is very unstable (or rather, regional) and it appears as SU₄ (hardly ever Ur III), SU₃, SU₁₃ - and later SA₅ [information courtesy of N. Veldhuis].
5Compare NINDA URU₄ in Sagig XVI 100'. Wee assumes that the first sign is erased, but the traces suggest otherwise.
6The only attestadtion of uḫabbat in Sagig is Sagig XV 16': ŠU-MIN-šu₂ ana KA-šu₂ u₂-ḫab-bat, translated by Heeßel AOAT 43 (2000) p. 156 as "Wenn dito und er seine Hände zu seinem Mund bewegt?" (see also the commentary ibid. p. 164).
7The reading ú-ḫ[ab-bat] is proposed in Frahm GMTR 5 (2011) p. 227 fn. 1058. ḫ[ab] is epigraphically very likely.