Correct the order of arguments to COMM in its instantiation.

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

protocol/protocol.tex

@@ -2547,7 +2547,7 @@ The commitment scheme $\Commit{}$ specified in \crossref{abstractcomm} is
 instantiated using $\FullHashName$ as follows:
 
 \begin{formulae}[leftmargin=1em]
-  \item $\Commit{\NoteCommitRand}(\Value, \AuthPublic, \NoteAddressRand) := \FullHashbox{\cmbox}$.
+  \item $\Commit{\NoteCommitRand}(\AuthPublic, \Value, \NoteAddressRand) := \FullHashbox{\cmbox}$.
 \end{formulae}
 
 \pnote{
@@ -4134,6 +4134,7 @@ The errors in the proof of Ledger Indistinguishability mentioned in
 \begin{itemize}
     \item Clarify the consensus rule preventing double-spends.
     \item Clarify what a \noteCommitment opens to in \crossref{crprf}.
+    \item Correct the order of arguments to $\Commit{}$ in \crossref{concretecomm}.
 \end{itemize}
 
 \introlist