We did a re-check on the PRM by re-running the Pitch and Yaw dof. This time we did not change the gain in M1_Test for P and Y dof (typically we change them to unity before running the measurements). As a result, the measurement ties up well with the reference as shown in the plot attached below. To sum it up, PRM is also healthy and free of any rubbing.

The new templates are stored at the following location,

/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PRM/SAGM1/Data

2020-04-15_1400_H1SUSPRM_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml
2020-04-15_1400_H1SUSPRM_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml

In the dtt I have updated the reference to match the results with P and Y dof gain (in M1_Test filter bank) set to 1.0, given below is the correct template for future use.

2020-04-15_1500_H1SUSPRM_M1_WhiteNoise_P_reference_updated_0p01to50Hz.xml
2020-04-15_1500_H1SUSPRM_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_reference_updated_0p01to50Hz.xml

Finally exporting and processing this data for H1 SUS MC1, and along the way improving the templates, as I continuing the campaign to keep up librarianship with the history of all SUS (and today motivated by understanding the diversity in pitch mode frequencies among the builds).

See attached .pdf for "individual" comparison against the model, which includes cross-coupling and OSEM basis response.

(I agree with the assessment that the SUS looked healthy at this time.)

To look in to the future of this SUS, see comments to LHO aLOG 57155, which compare this measurement against previous 2018 data and future 2020-10-29 data. In short -- they all look happily the same (because we haven't really touched this SUS since 2017).

Finally processing this 2020-04-14_1500 data (as well as some 2018-06_07_1648 data that had been taken but never aLOGed) for H1SUSPRM. 

Note that both 2018-01-03_2138 and 2018-06_07_1648 data sets suffered from the confusion about accidentally leaving the misalignment offset calibration gains of 1.875 and 2.681 ON in the TEST P and TEST Y filter banks, hence the confusion leading in to the 2020-04-14_1500 data that tripped up Cheryl and Rahul mentioned in the above comment LHO:55920.

As such -- although they report a healthy suspension otherwise, I don't show those errant data sets in the collection of PRM measurements attached here. The collection *does* however include a future measurement from 2020-10-29_1600 (LHO:57155) which is also healthy. PRM has been good for quite some time! Excellent!

Finally processing these 2020-04-14_1800 measurements for H1 SUS SR2. 

Only posting individual measurements here. Look for "2021-11-23_1530" for comparison against other measurements (spoiler: SR2 has looked healthy at least 2018-05-02!).

J. Kissel

And to complete the analysis of this collection of data, I've processed the 2020-04-14_2000 data for H1SUSSRM.

Individual data and comparison against its past and one other sus of the same type attached.

I concur that the SUS is healthy and unchanged at this time.
(The cross-coupling of the Second, 2.2 Hz Roll Mode in to the transverse DOF that appears in the 2019 and 2020 measurements is not alarming: these T and R DOFs are fundamentally cross-coupled, and this "extra" feature goes away when the SUS is damped. I see no other issues.)