My thanks to the author for addressing the feedback given on r0. I now have feedback (below) on r1.

-- HT

I believe the author is already aware that the comment grammar should be corrected to indicate a sequence of characters within the comment.
I believe similarly with regards to objections to using the grammar term in prose.

As noted in the SG 16 meeting today, the paper removes the freedom for an implementation to consider a preprocessing directive containing vertical tab or form feed as being an error. This is a design decision that the paper does not acknowledge as such. I believe that noting this change clearly in the paper's design section is sufficient to remedy this.
 
I have the following additional concerns about the wording:

(1)
In [lex.phases],
"introducing new-line characters for end-of-line indicators"
is removed.

I do not believe that this is helpful. The presumed intent remains that implementations may introduce line-breaks of one form or another for end-of-line indicators that do not correspond particularly to any "physical source file character".
Note that [cpp.line] contains a reference ("or introduced") to this text.

(2)
In the new [lex.whitespaces] subclause, the following is added:
whitespaces are ignored except as they serve to separate tokens

This seems to have come from the text being removed out of [lex.token] (where it was excusable). Whitespace separation is significant in [cpp.replace.general], etc. This sentence should at best be a note in relation to phase 7 of translation.