IMHO, there are a few potentially misleading statements:

1.) "In both cases data-taking could start around 2012 and would go on 
for several years" misses the point that SNO+ sensitivity comes much 
earlier than SuperNEMO. Sensitivity to the inverted hierarchy will be 
achieved about 4 years earlier by SNO+ according to the current schedules.

2.) "A proposal is being developed for a smaller-scale investment in 
SNO+ at the level of £400k/an". Saying it's smaller-scale implies that 
it's less important/significant to the collaboration, which is not true. 
You could simply state the bare monetary fact by removing 
"smaller-scale", or alternatively put "better value for money" instead.

3.) "SuperNEMO is seen as essential to firmly establish any claimed 
signal from other experiments.": this could have inserted "0nuBB-nature" 
[of any claimed signal] to make it clearer. SNO+ will be able to very 
firmly establish the presence of the current Klapdor-claim for a signal. 
The point being that SuperNEMO will be able to study the topology of the 
events and determine that there are two back to back electrons as 
expected for true-0nuBB.

Hope that makes sense, and that I'm not quibbling too much. I wasn't 
sure what level of feedback would be appropriate.

Cheers,
Jeff.