Here are some plots of Camilla's first dataset above, changing the SRC detuning while adjsuting the squeezing angle for high frequency squeezing, made with the same code used for 80318, which is available here

For the gwinc model, I've set the generated squeezing to 23 dB based on Camilla's measured NLG of 58.  Based on the loss estimates from 83457, I've set the Injection loss to 0.178 (17.8% loss) and the PD efficiency (readout efficiency) to 0.815, and the phase noise to 0.

The third attachment shows the model where I've manually adjusted the SRC detuning to roughly match the subtracted squeezing, and the second shows a linear fit of SRCL offset to these detunings.  This suggests that the SRCL offset should be at -306 counts to reduce the SRCL offset, and that we are currently running with a SRCL detuning of 0.013 radians. 

This morning we put SRCL offset to -306, FC de-tuning -28Hz. I then ran SCAN_SQZANG which changed the angle form 171 to 161 and compare the before and after DARM, attached, SQZ looks alot better at higher frequencies, however the range, attached, is similar or a little worse, maybe the 300Hz (yellow BLRMs) squeezing is slightly worse.

Updated DTT legend as had typo.

Here are some preliminary plots from Camilla's data set of different squeezing angles taken at an NLG of 58 with the SRCL offset at it's nominal -191 counts setting, which we believe is about 13 mrad SRC detuning. 

The first plot shows some assumptions that go into making this model, we start with an assumption about arm power, use the noise budget estimate of non quantum noise at 2kHz (which may be out of date now), and set the readout losses to fit the no squeezing data at 2.1-2.3kHz.  Then subtract this quantum noise model without squeezing  from the no squeezing data, and use that as an estimate of the non-quantum noise, which can be added to all of the quantum noise models for different squeezing angles to compare to the measurement. (second plot is a somewhat overwhelming plot of all this added for completeness).

I've set the phase noise to 0 based on 83457.  Using the level of sqz and anti-squeeze at 2.1-2.3 kHz, we infer that the NLG was 63 and the total efficency was 66.5%.  Camilla measured the NLG to be 58, for 120uW circulating power, but in 83370 she measured 61-63 for 120uW.   The third plot here shows the data that Camilla took with the LO loop unlocked, so that the squeezing angle is averaging and rotating freely.  Using this and knowledge of the NLG, we should be able to infer the total squeezing efficiency as a function of frequency. Doing the subtraction of non quantum noise increases the infered efficiency, (compare thick lines to thin), the two different values of NLG suggest rather different efficiencies. There is evidence that the efficiency frequency dependent, which could be caused by a number of effects. Below 200 Hz there is some excess noise in the mean sqz trace, as you can see here, which causes the efficiency infered to be above 1.

The next two plots show the model broken into more readable plots, with the only thing I've adjusted by hand being the SRC detuning.  There is a discrepancy between the model + noise for the anti-squeezing and anti-squeezing +/-10 degrees traces without the filter cavity, which seems like it could be some excess noise that is similar for the different traces.  This is similar to the discrepancy seen in the last plot in 82097, but it is larger in this higher NLG dataset.