J. Kissel, for the Calibration Team

After Louis updated the CAL-CS portion of the DARM calibration by re-installing the 3.2 kHz pole that was missing from the model of the TST stage ESD driver (see LHO:72043) we've have a preliminary, by-hand, estimate of the H1 detector's systematic error in calibration that did not include proper PCAL calibration (see LHO:72075). 

In addition, yesterday I moved one of the continuous calibration line frequencies from 102.13 Hz to 104.23 Hz (see LHO:72108). So I wanted to show the before vs. after of that.

Take a look at the following three attachments comparing before vs. after the changes. Both plots show the *modeled* response function systematic error (formed by almagomating all of the uncertainty and systematic error from the individual DARM model components) against the *measured* response function systematic error (directly measured from PCAL lines continuously injected into the data stream)

    2023-08-07 22:50 UTC (Archive Folder :: 1375483828) -- uncertainty_consistency_check_H1_1375480228_1375483828_GDS-CALIB_STRAIN.png attached

    2023-08-07 00:15 UTC Louis re-installs the missing 3.2 kHz pole.

    2023-08-08 07:50 UTC (Archive Folder :: 1375516226) -- uncertainty_consistency_check_H1_1375512626_1375516226_GDS-CALIB_STRAIN.png
        
In this before .vs after, one sees the drastic improvement in *measured* systematic error at ~78-80 Hz and it's alignment within the 68% confidence interval of the *modeled* systematic error.
The key here is that the astrophysical pipelines are still using the *modeled* systematic error, and until the 2023-08-07 00:15 UTC fix, the modeled systematic error has been *under reporting* the true systematic error (as revealed by the *measured* systematic error). Not to worry though -- since we've now identified what the problem *was* we can, and will, go back and re-calculate the systematic error for later offline consumption.

Of lesser importance,
    2023-08-09 21:13 UTC Jeff moves the 102.13 Hz calibration line to 104.23 Hz 

    2023-08-10 02:50 UTC (Archive Folder :: 1375671030) -- uncertainty_consistency_check_H1_1375667431_1375671030_GDS-CALIB_STRAIN.png

This is a culmination of an amazing amount of work by the whole team, especially Louis Dartez. WELL DONE!!

Because we live in the insane world of 1%-level calibration, we can never be happy for too long. 
Still on the to-do list for the low-latency systematic error,
    - Incorporate the results of the PCALX roaming line into the *modeled* systematic error. This will refine the 68% confidence interval above 1 kHz.
    - Incorporate *some* model of the detector's sensing function change during thermalization into the *modeled* systematic error. This will refine the model during the first 2-3 hrs of observation ready data that occurs right after a PSL laser power-up lock-acuisition.