General impressions.

This is a well-organized and well-documented volume. I list some specific comments below. Most are minor. The only two that I would classify as potentially major relate to the reference areoid(s) for EDS files and sources of data in TARGET.CAT.

There are multiple acronym lists in this volume, which has the potential to cause confusion, but I recommend leaving the lists as they are, rather than trying to merge them.

The volume could be released in its present condition if implementation of my suggested revisions is not practical. 

ROOT DIRECTORY

AAREADME.TXT
Is Hinson's Stanford address accurate? Is a SETI affiliation more up-to-date?

All other files in this directory are fine

INDEX/
Does the format of the times in INDEX.TAB automatically imply UTC?
It would be helpful to state that somewhere
eg, OCCLOG.LBL states explicitly that its times are UTC.

All other files in this directory are fine

DOCUMENT/
EDS_VOLM.TXT - Hinson's Stanford affiliation again

OCCLOG.LBL
In the entry for:
 NAME                         = "ODR FILE NAME"                            
there are unusual line breaks around the template for
the file name, YDDDhhmm.RSR   

Is this deliberate or an error in formatting?

All other files in this directory are fine

CATALOG/

DATSET.CAT
"EDS files are tables of electron number density versus both             
radius from Mars' center of mass and altitude above a reference         
areoid."
The reference areoid is not defined in DATASET.CAT.
I see an entry for "GRAVITY FIELD MODEL" in 812506AA.LBL that is "File name of gravity field spherical harmonic model used in defining reference areoid." Glancing at 812506AA.OCS, it appears that only two such models were used, GGM50A02.SHA and JGM75C01.SHA. It is important to tell data users, in as obvious a place as possible, that two different areoids have been used.

According to the .LBL files in the EDS directory:
"The reference areoid is the equipotential
surface whose mean equatorial radius is 3,396,000 m."

I would like DATASET.CAT to say something like:
The reference areoid is the equipotential surface whose mean equatorial radius is 3,396,000 m. EDS data from 1998 used gravity field spherical harmonic model GGM50A02.SHA, whereas EDS data from 1999-2006 used gravity field spherical harmonic model JGM75C01.SHA. There are many different normalization conventions for spherical harmonics. The convention used by these gravity field spherical harmonic models is explained clearly and in great detail in (REFERENCE). Centrifugal potentials due to the rotation of Mars (sidereal period = 24.XX hrs) were added to these gravitational potential to obtain the total potential before a surface of uniform total potential was found.

I think that centrifugal potentials have to be added to the gravity models, rather than being already included, but I'm not sure. So it would be useful to be explicit on this point. I have in the past spent many hours searching for normalization conventions and trying to work out by mind-reading which convention an author used, so I do think that a reference to a good source would be worthwhile.

Reference areoids are a pet peeve of mine. I see many archives and publications that say "we use a reference areoid" without either defining it clearly enough for anyone to reproduce their work or defining it at all. This prevents me from comparing data between different datasets. It is good that radial distances are given in the EDS files, so a user could convert them to his desired areoid, but this does not eliminate the need to define the areoid(s).

INST.CAT
"Several thousand electron          
density profiles were derived from MGS data"
The total of 5600 is stated elsewhere in this volume

MISSION.CAT
"B. Sword, 2007-07-25" is not in ALL CAPS, unlike the rest of the entries

In EXTENDED-EXTENDED (E2) MISSION section
there is an unusual line break in "egress campaigns"
"the R16 attitude, and radio science 'egress 
campaigns' were continued. MGS life expectancy was increased"
  
In EXTENDED MISSION (E4) section
Do you want to include a reference to the report on the loss of MGS?

PERSON.CAT
Hinson/Stanford again

TARGET.CAT
Many of these values appear to predate MGS. Sources from 1989 feature prominently. Are more accurate values now available? Specifically, the radii and magnetic moment.
The mass value looks funny too - 641910000000000065536000.000000 
There are about ten zeros in the middle of this number, is the 65536 that follow it meaningful?

All other files in this directory are fine

EDS/ and OCS/

All files in these directories are fine