  In this comment on the work of F. Buscemi, M.J.W. Hall, M. Ozawa and M.M.
Wilde [PRL 112, 050401, 2014, arXiv:1310.6603], we point out a
misrepresentation of measures of error and disturbance introduced in our recent
work [PRL 111, 160405, 2013, arXiv:1306.1565] as being "purely formal, with no
operational counterparts". We also exhibit an tension in the authors' message,
in that their main result is an error-disturbance relation for
state-independent measures, but its importance is declared to be limited to
discrete variables. In contrast, we point out the separate roles played by such
relations for either state-dependent or state-independent measures of error and
disturbance.
