Index: branches/eam_branches/ipp-20130509/Ohana/src/addstar/src/resort_catalog.c
===================================================================
--- branches/eam_branches/ipp-20130509/Ohana/src/addstar/src/resort_catalog.c	(revision 35718)
+++ branches/eam_branches/ipp-20130509/Ohana/src/addstar/src/resort_catalog.c	(revision 35719)
@@ -91,7 +91,16 @@
     if (catalog[0].catformat >= DVO_FORMAT_PS1_V1) {
       // earlier formats did not carry the objID or catID, so they are not available (we could assign on load, but we don't)
+      myAssert(average[averageSeq[i]].catID == measure[measureSeq[i]].catID, "object / detection mismatch");
+# if (1)
       myAssert(average[averageSeq[i]].objID == measure[measureSeq[i]].objID, "object / detection mismatch");
-      myAssert(average[averageSeq[i]].catID == measure[measureSeq[i]].catID, "object / detection mismatch");
+# else
+      // for reasons I do not understand, the mini dvodbs generated on stsci1X had a handful of detections with an inconsistency between averef and objID.  
+      // this happened for 28 detections in the dbs on /data/stsci1?.0/eugene/dvo3pi.20130616, but not at all (as far as I know) in the rest of LAP DVO
+      if (average[averageSeq[i]].objID != measure[measureSeq[i]].objID) {
+	fprintf (stderr, "R");
+	measure[measureSeq[i]].objID = average[averageSeq[i]].objID; // XXX I don't really like this...
+      }
     }
+# endif
   }