I have produced first-order plots of the magnitude and phase strain uncertainty. These plots look very good mostly because I am using only statistical uncertainty, and in some cases eyeballing the systematics from residual plots to get an idea of our final uncertainty. These are the values of sigma I used for the various parameters important to strain: σ_|A_tst| = 0.01*abs(A_tst); 1% uncertainty σ_|A_pu| = 0.039*abs(A_pu); 3% uncertainty σ_|C_r| = 0.01*abs(C_r); 1% uncertainty σ_|kappa_tst| = 0.0040; std of first order |kappa_tst| calculations σ_|kappa_pu| = 0.0066; std of first order |kappa_pu| calculations σ_φ_A_tst = 5; 5 degree assumption σ_φ_A_pu = 5; 5 degree assumption σ_φ_C_r = 5; 5 degree assumption σ_φ_kappa_tst = 0.27; std of first order phi_kappa_tst calculations σ_φ_kappa_pu = 0.35; std of first order phi_kappa_tst calculations σ_kappa_C = 0.0049; std of first order kappa_C calcs σ_f_c = 23.4731; std of first order f_c calcs Plots 1 and 2 are the Magnitude and Phase Uncertainty Plots using the Response function. Recall the Response function R = (1 + G) / C. I will also have the "Two Signal" calibration uncertainty (h = DARM_ERR / C + A * DARM_CTRL), and I expect them to coincide nicely someday soon. Note that the max uncertainty in magnitude is ~4% at 30 Hz and the max uncertainty in phase is ~7 degrees. (Remember that these are first order plots, but this is surely auspicious!) Plots 3 and 4 are the squared component plots where we can see which parts of the uncertainty dominate where. For magnitude, phi_A_pu and phi_A_tst dominate at low frequency and phi_C_r dominates at high frequency. For phase, phi_A_pu dominates at low frequency and phi_C_r dominates at high frequency. Next I will ensure the Two Signal and Response Function uncertainties are similar, then I will begin to inform our sigmas more intelligently.