diff --git a/book/src/SUMMARY.md b/book/src/SUMMARY.md
index 56d8b0c..e6eb615 100644
--- a/book/src/SUMMARY.md
+++ b/book/src/SUMMARY.md
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
     - [Multipoint opening argument](design/proving-system/multipoint-opening.md)
     - [Permutation argument](design/proving-system/permutation.md)
     - [Lookup argument](design/proving-system/lookup-argument.md)
+    - [Comparison to other work](design/proving-system/comparison.md)
   - [Implementation](design/implementation.md)
   - [Gadgets](design/gadgets.md)
     - [SHA-256](design/gadgets/sha256.md)
diff --git a/book/src/design/proving-system/comparison.md b/book/src/design/proving-system/comparison.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..56517ee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/book/src/design/proving-system/comparison.md
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# Comparison to other work
+
+## BCMS20 Appendix A.2
+
+Appendix A.2 of [BCMS20] describes a polynomial commitment scheme that is similar to the
+one described in [BGH19] (BCMS20 being a generalization of the original Halo paper). Halo
+2 builds on both of these works, and thus itself uses a polynomial commitment scheme that
+is very similar to the one in BCMS20.
+
+[BGH19]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1021
+[BCMS20]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/499
+
+The following table provides a mapping between the variable names in BCMS20, and the
+equivalent objects in Halo 2 (which builds on the nomenclature from the Halo paper):
+
+|     BCMS20     |       Halo 2        |
+| :------------: | :-----------------: |
+|      $S$       |         $H$         |
+|      $H$       |         $U$         |
+|      $C$       |    `msm` or $P$     |
+|    $\alpha$    |       $\iota$       |
+|    $\xi_0$     |         $z$         |
+|    $\xi_i$     |    `challenge_i`    |
+|      $H'$      |       $[z] U$       |
+|   $\bar{p}$    |      `s_poly`       |
+| $\bar{\omega}$ |   `s_poly_blind`    |
+|   $\bar{C}$    | `s_poly_commitment` |
+|     $h(X)$     |       $g(X)$        |
+|   $\omega'$    |   `blind` / $\xi$   |
+|  $\mathbf{c}$  |    $\mathbf{a}$     |
+|      $c$       | $a = \mathbf{a}_0$  |
+|      $v'$      |        $ab$         |
+
+Halo 2's polynomial commitment scheme differs from Appendix A.2 of BCMS20 in two ways:
+
+1. Step 8 of the $\text{Open}$ algorithm computes a "non-hiding" commitment $C'$ prior to
+   the inner product argument, which opens to the same value as $C$ but is a commitment to
+   a randomly-drawn polynomial. The remainder of the protocol involves no blinding. By
+   contrast, in Halo 2 we blind every single commitment that we make (even for auxiliary
+   and fixed polynomials, though using a blinding factor of 1 for the fixed polynomials);
+   this makes the protocol simpler to reason about. As a consequence of this, the verifier
+   needs to handle the cumulative blinding factor at the end of the protocol, and so there
+   is no need to derive an equivalent to $C'$ at the start of the protocol.
+
+   - $C'$ is also an input to the random oracle for $\xi_0$; in Halo 2 we utilize a
+     transcript that has already committed to the equivalent components of $C'$ prior to
+     sampling $z$.
+
+2. The $\text{PC}_\text{DL}.\text{SuccinctCheck}$ subroutine (Figure 2 of BCMS20) computes
+   the initial group element $C_0$ by adding $[v] H' = [v \epsilon] H$, which requires two
+   scalar multiplications. Instead, we subtract $[v] G_0$ from the original commitment $P$,
+   so that we're effectively opening the polynomial at the point to the value zero. The
+   computation $[v] G_0$ is more efficient in the context of recursion because $G_0$ is a
+   fixed base (so we can use lookup tables).