Attached stdout of command line.

Neat! looks good.

Hi Chris,
It looks like there is a 1s offset between the times you report and the rough coalescence time of the signal. Do you know if it is exactly 1s difference?

Yes, as John said, all of the end times of the waveforms are just about 1 second later that what's in the original post.

I ran a version my simple bandpass-filtered overlay script for these waveforms.  Filtering both the model (strain waveform injected into the system) and the data from 70-260 Hz, it overlays them, and also does a crude (non-optimal) matched filter to estimate the relative amplitude and time offset.  The four plots attached are for the four injected signals; note that the first one was injected with a scale factor of 0.5 and is not "reconstructed" by my code very accurately.  The others actually look rather good, with reasonably consistent amplitudes and time delays.  Note that the sign of the signal came out correctly!

I ran the daily BBH search with the injected template on the last two injections (1127075235 and 1127075742).

For 1127075235; the recovered end time was 1127075235.986, the SNR was 20.42, the chi-squared was 29.17, and the newSNR was 19.19.
For 1127075242; the recovered end time was 1127075242.986, the SNR was 20.04, the chi-squared was 35.07, and the newSNR was 19.19.

KW sees all the injections with the +1 sec delay, some of them in multiple frequency bands.
From 
  /gds-h1/dmt/triggers/H-KW_RHOFT/H-KW_RHOFT-11270/H-KW_RHOFT-1127074624-64.trg
  /gds-h1/dmt/triggers/H-KW_RHOFT/H-KW_RHOFT-11270/H-KW_RHOFT-1127074752-64.trg
  /gds-h1/dmt/triggers/H-KW_RHOFT/H-KW_RHOFT-11270/H-KW_RHOFT-1127075200-64.trg
  /gds-h1/dmt/triggers/H-KW_RHOFT/H-KW_RHOFT-11270/H-KW_RHOFT-1127075712-64.trg

    tcent         fcent significance channel
1127074640.979948   146    26.34      H1_GDS-CALIB_STRAIN_32_2048
1127074774.015977   119    41.17      H1_GDS-CALIB_STRAIN_8_128
1127074773.978134   165   104.42      H1_GDS-CALIB_STRAIN_32_2048
1127075235.980545   199   136.82      H1_GDS-CALIB_STRAIN_32_2048
1127075743.018279   102    74.87      H1_GDS-CALIB_STRAIN_8_128
1127075742.982020   162   113.65      H1_GDS-CALIB_STRAIN_32_2048

Omicron also sees them with the same delay
From :
  /home/reed.essick/Omicron/test/triggers/H-11270/H1:GDS-CALIB_STRAIN/H1-GDS_CALIB_STRAIN_Omicron-1127074621-30.xml
  /home/reed.essick/Omicron/test/triggers/H-11270/H1:GDS-CALIB_STRAIN/H1-GDS_CALIB_STRAIN_Omicron-1127074771-30.xml
  /home/reed.essick/Omicron/test/triggers/H-11270/H1:GDS-CALIB_STRAIN/H1-GDS_CALIB_STRAIN_Omicron-1127075221-30.xml
  /home/reed.essick/Omicron/test/triggers/H-11270/H1:GDS-CALIB_STRAIN/H1-GDS_CALIB_STRAIN_Omicron-1127075731-30.xml

    peak time          fcent      snr
1127074640.977539062  88.77163  6.3716
1127074773.983397960 648.78342 11.41002  <- surprisingly high fcent, could be due to clustering
1127075235.981445074 181.39816 13.09279
1127075742.983397960 181.39816 12.39437

LIB single-IFO jobs also found all the events. Post-proc pages can be found here:

 https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~reed.essick/O1/2015_09_23-HWINJ/1127074640.98-0/H1L1/H1/posplots.html
 https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~reed.essick/O1/2015_09_23-HWINJ/1127074773.98-1/H1L1/H1/posplots.html
 https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~reed.essick/O1/2015_09_23-HWINJ/1127075235.98-2/H1L1/H1/posplots.html
 https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~reed.essick/O1/2015_09_23-HWINJ/1127075742.98-3/H1L1/H1/posplots.html

all runs appear to have reasonable posteriors.

Here is how Omicron detects these injections:

https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~frobinet/scans/hd/1127074641/
https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~frobinet/scans/hd/1127074774/
https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~frobinet/scans/hd/1127075236/
https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~frobinet/scans/hd/1127075743/

Here are the parameters measured by Omicron (loudest tile):
1127074640: t=1127074640.981, f=119.9 Hz, SNR=6.7
1127074773: t=1127074773.981, f=135.3 Hz, SNR=11.8
1127075235: t=1127075235.981, f=114.9 Hz, SNR=12.8
1127075742: t=1127075742.981, f=135.3 Hz, SNR=12.4

The BayesWave single IFO (glitch only) analysis recovers these injections with the following SNRs:
4640: 8.65535
4773: 19.2185
5253: 20.5258
5742: 20.1666
The results are posted here:
https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~meg.millhouse/O1/CBC_hwinj/

General Question:  Does this knock us out of Observation Mode?  Could I have reset this this morning?

IFO was in Commissioniing.

No, the DIAG_MAIN guardian node is NOT under the OBSERVATION READY check.  It can be changed/reset/etc. without affecting OBSERVATION MODE.

I think Cheryl was talking about the diag reset button on the GDS overview screen for the front end, not the DIAG_MAIN guardian.

Intent mode was turned off before tests.

I've attached time series of the four waveforms. Y-axis is h(t) in strain.

EDIT: Re-uploaded image files with title and proper y and x labels.

Chris, I think the links to the XML parameter files are broken, could you please add corrected ones?   Error message:

The requested URL /svn/injection/hwinj/Details/Inspiral/coherenttest1_1126257410.xml.gz was not found on this server.

Cheers, Bruce

Hi sorry forgot the h1l1 at the beginning. https://daqsvn.ligo-la.caltech.edu/svn/injection/hwinj/Details/Inspiral/h1l1coherenttest1_1126257410.xml.gz

and https://daqsvn.ligo-la.caltech.edu/svn/injection/hwinj/Details/Inspiral/h1l1coherenttest1from15hz_1126257410.xml.gz

Appears to be a standard NDS2 burp:

2015-09-21T22:57:59.11305   File "/ligo/apps/linux-x86_64/guardian-1485/lib/python2.7/site-packages/guardian/worker.py", line 459, in run
2015-09-21T22:57:59.11306     retval = statefunc()
2015-09-21T22:57:59.11306   File "/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sys/common/guardian/SYS_DIAG.py", line 178, in run
2015-09-21T22:57:59.11307     return SYSDIAG.run_all()
2015-09-21T22:57:59.11307   File "/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sys/common/guardian/SYS_DIAG.py", line 151, in run_all
2015-09-21T22:57:59.11308     ret &= self.run(name)
2015-09-21T22:57:59.11308   File "/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sys/common/guardian/SYS_DIAG.py", line 136, in run
2015-09-21T22:57:59.11310     for msg in self[name](**kwargs):
2015-09-21T22:57:59.11311   File "/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sys/h1/guardian/DIAG_MAIN.py", line 66, in PSL_ISS
2015-09-21T22:57:59.11311     diff_pwr = avg(-10, 'PSL-ISS_DIFFRACTION_AVG')
2015-09-21T22:57:59.11312   File "/ligo/apps/linux-x86_64/cdsutils-497/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cdsutils/avg.py", line 67, in avg
2015-09-21T22:57:59.11312     for buf in conn.iterate(*args):
2015-09-21T22:57:59.11313 RuntimeError: Requested data were not found.

Reloaded.

Having the guardian go into error because of an NDS2 hiccough is kind of irritating.

Based on this StackExchange answer, I added the following handler function to the DIAG MAIN guardian:

def try_avg(*args):
    while True:
        try:
            q = avg(*args)
        except RuntimeError:
            log('Encountered runtime error while trying to average {}'.format(args[1]))
            continue
        break
    return q

where avg is the cdsutils.avg function.

This is now used for the ISS diffraction and the ESD railing diag tests. If we like it, we should consider propagating it to the rest of the guardian.

This is a fine hack solution for this one case, but please don't propogate this around to all guardian NDS calls.  Let me come up with a way to better handle it within the guardian infrastructure, so we don't end up with a lot of cruft in the guardian user code.