First I ran SCAN_SQZANG from SQZ_MANAGER, result is here

Then switched to anti squeezing by flipping sign on CLF servo and adjusting sqz angle to 98 (roughly watching the DTT template), and ran SCAN_ALIGNMENT_FDS.  Results are here: https://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/exports/SQZ/GRD/ZM_SCAN/240426111805/

In that scan it looked like some of the degrees of freedom didn't end at the place that was really maximizing anti-squeezing, perhaps because the best alignment was at the edge of the scan range.  I manually moved AM4 + ZM6 to try to increase the anti-squeezing based on these plots (and watching in dtt). I also noticed during this that a lot of time in SCAN_SQZ_ALIGNMENT is taken up with scanning the squeezing angle, which is necessary if we are using squeezing to align, but seems like it will be less necessary for anti-squeezing.  I looked at the sqz angle the script was choosing, and indeed it wasn't changing much at each alignment step.  I've added logic to the state that it does this sqz angle scans if the fom is sqz, but skips it for asqz. This cuts the time that the script takes in half, so it now takes 5 minutes.

Re-running the script (without scanning sqz angle) produced this set of plots: 240426115056/ which show that we seem to have maximized anti-squeezing for differential alignment, but the plots for common seem like noise.  We may need to make a larger scan for common.

We lost lock right as this scan finished, but don't think that the scan was the cause of the lockloss. We will need to retune the sqz angle when we relock, and may also need to retune it after the IFO has thermalized.