C. Cahillane

There was some concerned voiced by Alan and Peter about the LLO uncertainty budget combined with the systematic error corrections at around 100 Hz at gpstime = 1126259461.
This post is merely to mirror the study I did at LLO with a similar one at LHO explaining why we do not see the LLO 'hump' at LHO.  See LLO aLOG 24796
I have included the LHO C01 vs C03 response functions systematic error and statistical uncertainty plot. (See PDF 1) 

I began with the "perfect" C03 version of calibration response which includes all systematic corrections.  Then, one by one I removed each systematic correction and compared it to the original C03 response: (See PDF 2)
Sensing:    C_r (Plot 1)
Actuation:  A_tst, A_pum, and A_uim (Plot 2, 3, and 4)
Kappas:     kappa_tst, kappa_pu, kappa_C, and f_c (cavity pole) (Plot 5, 6, 7, and 8)

So you don't have to go through and view every plot yourself, I have compiled all of the systematic error values at 100 Hz for each of the parameters:
C_r = 0.98932
A_{tst} = 1.0018
A_{pum} = 0.99381
A_{uim} = 1
kappa_{tst} = 1.0251
kappa_{pu} = 0.99465
kappa_C = 1.002
f_C = 1

Total Syst Error = +0.0068

So the total systematic error at 100 Hz is < 1% because it is countered by the C_r, A_pum, and kappa_pu systematic errors.