Update paragraph about the differences in note fields.

Signed-off-by: Daira Hopwood <daira@jacaranda.org>

protocol/protocol.tex

@@ -3070,13 +3070,15 @@ distinct openings of the \noteCommitment when Condition I or II is violated.
 \nsubsection{Miscellaneous}
 
 \begin{itemize}
-    \item The paper defines a \note as a tuple $(\AuthPublic, \Value,
+    \item The paper defines a \note as $((\AuthPublic, \TransmitPublic), \Value,
           \NoteAddressRand, \NoteCommitRand, \NoteCommitS, \cm)$, whereas this
           specification defines it as $(\AuthPublic, \Value, \NoteAddressRand, \NoteCommitRand)$.
           The instantiation of $\Commit{\NoteCommitS}$ in section 5.1 of the paper
           did not actually use $\NoteCommitS$, and neither does the new
-          instantiation of $\Commit{}$ in \Zcash. $\cm$ can be computed from
-          the other fields.
+          instantiation of $\Commit{}$ in \Zcash. $\TransmitPublic$ is also
+          not needed as part of a \note: it is not an input to $\Commit{}$ nor
+          is it constrained by the \Zerocash \POUR \statement or the
+          \Zcash \joinSplitStatement. $\cm$ can be computed from the other fields.
     \item The length of proof encodings given in the paper is 288 bytes.
           This differs from the 296 bytes specified in \crossref{proofencoding},
           because the paper did not take into account the need to encode compressed