diff --git a/protocol/protocol.tex b/protocol/protocol.tex
index e5b511c5..94ff04fb 100644
--- a/protocol/protocol.tex
+++ b/protocol/protocol.tex
@@ -11784,6 +11784,7 @@ $\ValueCommit{}$ can be implemented in:
 for a total cost of $?$ constraints.
 
 
+\introsection
 \subsubsection{BLAKE2s hashes} \label{cctblake2s}
 
 \introlist
@@ -11830,7 +11831,7 @@ The Initialization Vector is defined as:
       &\hexint{510E527F} &\hexint{9B05688C} &\hexint{1F83D9AB} &\hexint{5BE0CD19}\,] \\
 \end{tabular}
 
-\vspace{2ex}
+\vspace{10ex}
 \intropart
 The full hash function applied to an $8$-byte personalization string and a single
 $64$-byte block, in sequential mode with $32$-byte output, can be expressed as follows.
@@ -11840,7 +11841,7 @@ Define $\BlakeTwos{256} \typecolon (p \typecolon \byteseq{8}) \times (x \typecol
 \begin{formulae}
   \item let $\BlakeParamBlock \typecolon \byteseq{32} = [32, 0, 1, 1] \bconcat\, \zerobytes{20} \bconcat p$
   \item let $[\,t_0, t_1, f_0, f_1\,] \typecolon \typeexp{\binaryrange{32}}{4} = [\,0, 0, 0, \hexint{FFFFFFFF}, 0\,]$
-  \item \vspace{-2ex}
+  \item \vspace{-3ex}
   \item let $h \typecolon \typeexp{\binaryrange{32}}{8} =
              \listcomp{\LEOStoIPOf{32}{\BlakeParamBlock_{\barerange{4 \mult i}{4 \mult i\,+\,3}}} \xor \BlakeIV_i \for i \from 0 \upto 7}$
   \item let $v \typecolon \typeexp{\binaryrange{32}}{16} =
@@ -11848,23 +11849,24 @@ Define $\BlakeTwos{256} \typecolon (p \typecolon \byteseq{8}) \times (x \typecol
                             t_0 \xor \BlakeIV_4, t_1 \xor \BlakeIV_5, f_0 \xor \BlakeIV_6, f_1 \xor \BlakeIV_7\,]$
   \item let $m \typecolon \typeexp{\binaryrange{32}}{16} =
              \listcomp{\LEOStoIPOf{32}{x_{\barerange{4 \mult i}{4 \mult i\,+\,3}}} \for i \from 0 \upto 15}$
-        \vspace{2ex}
+        \vspace{1ex}
   \item for $r$ from $0$ up to $9$:
-        \vspace{-1ex}
+        \vspace{-2ex}
   \item \begin{tabular}{@{\tab set\;}T@{}T@{}T@{}U@{}T@{}T@{}T@{}T@{}T@{}U@{}U}
           (v_{ 0}, &v_{ 4}, &v_{ 8}, &v_{12}&) := G(v_{ 0}, &v_{ 4}, &v_{ 8}, &v_{12}, &m_{\sigma_{r, 0}}, &m_{\sigma_{r, 1}}&) \\
           (v_{ 1}, &v_{ 5}, &v_{ 9}, &v_{13}&) := G(v_{ 1}, &v_{ 5}, &v_{ 9}, &v_{13}, &m_{\sigma_{r, 2}}, &m_{\sigma_{r, 3}}&) \\
           (v_{ 2}, &v_{ 6}, &v_{10}, &v_{14}&) := G(v_{ 2}, &v_{ 6}, &v_{10}, &v_{14}, &m_{\sigma_{r, 4}}, &m_{\sigma_{r, 5}}&) \\
-          (v_{ 3}, &v_{ 7}, &v_{11}, &v_{15}&) := G(v_{ 3}, &v_{ 7}, &v_{11}, &v_{15}, &m_{\sigma_{r, 6}}, &m_{\sigma_{r, 7}}&) \\[2ex]
+          (v_{ 3}, &v_{ 7}, &v_{11}, &v_{15}&) := G(v_{ 3}, &v_{ 7}, &v_{11}, &v_{15}, &m_{\sigma_{r, 6}}, &m_{\sigma_{r, 7}}&) \\[1ex]
           (v_{ 0}, &v_{ 5}, &v_{10}, &v_{15}&) := G(v_{ 0}, &v_{ 5}, &v_{10}, &v_{15}, &m_{\sigma_{r, 8}}, &m_{\sigma_{r, 9}}&) \\
           (v_{ 1}, &v_{ 6}, &v_{11}, &v_{12}&) := G(v_{ 1}, &v_{ 6}, &v_{11}, &v_{12}, &m_{\sigma_{r,10}}, &m_{\sigma_{r,11}}&) \\
           (v_{ 2}, &v_{ 7}, &v_{ 8}, &v_{13}&) := G(v_{ 2}, &v_{ 7}, &v_{ 8}, &v_{13}, &m_{\sigma_{r,12}}, &m_{\sigma_{r,13}}&) \\
           (v_{ 3}, &v_{ 4}, &v_{ 9}, &v_{14}&) := G(v_{ 3}, &v_{ 4}, &v_{ 9}, &v_{14}, &m_{\sigma_{r,14}}, &m_{\sigma_{r,15}}&) \\
         \end{tabular}
-  \item
+  \item \vspace{-1ex}
   \item return $\LEBStoOSPOf{256}{\concatbits\Of{\listcomp{\ItoLEBSPOf{32}{h_i \xor v_i \xor v_{i+8}} \for i \from 0 \upto 7}}}$
 \end{formulae}
 
+\vspace{-1ex}
 In practice the message and output will be expressed as bit sequences. In the \Sapling
 circuit, the personalization string will be constant for each use.
 
@@ -11887,7 +11889,7 @@ The equality checks are batched; as many sets of $33$ or $34$ boolean variables
 will fit in a $\GF{\ParamS{r}}$ field element are equated together using one constraint.
 This allows $7$ such checks per constraint.
 
-\vspace{2ex}
+\vspace{1ex}
 \introlist
 Each $G$ evaluation requires $262$ constraints:
 \begin{itemize}
@@ -11899,6 +11901,7 @@ Each $G$ evaluation requires $262$ constraints:
 \end{itemize}
 
 \introlist
+\vspace{-1ex}
 The overall cost is $21262$ constraints:
 \begin{itemize}
   \item $10 \mult 8 \mult 262 = 20960$ constraints for $80$ $G$ evaluations, excluding