Index: trunk/doc/release.2015/systematics.20140411/diffusion.tex
===================================================================
--- trunk/doc/release.2015/systematics.20140411/diffusion.tex	(revision 40306)
+++ trunk/doc/release.2015/systematics.20140411/diffusion.tex	(revision 40307)
@@ -22,5 +22,6 @@
 % \newcommand\oldtext[1]{\textbf{\color{light-gray}#1}}
 \newcommand\oldtext[1]{\ignorespaces}
-\newcommand\newtext[1]{\textbf{\color{blue}#1}}
+% \newcommand\newtext[1]{\textbf{\color{blue}#1}}
+\newcommand\newtext[1]{#1}
 \newcommand\fixtext[1]{\textbf{\color{red}#1}}
 
@@ -347,5 +348,5 @@
 \cite{2013ApJS..205...20M,magnier2017.calibration}.  As part of this
 process, several flat-field corrections have been determined.  For the
-PV2 analysis discussed here, a flat-field correction determined during
+PV0 analysis discussed here, a flat-field correction determined during
 the ubercal analysis \citep[see][]{2012ApJ...756..158S} consisted of
 an $8\times 8$ grid of corrections for each GPC1 chip, corresponding
@@ -354,5 +355,5 @@
 with modifications to the baffle structures or the system optics.  The
 critical point here is that the final effective flat-field image for
-the PV2 dataset is based on a dome-flat at the highest resolution,
+the PV0 dataset is based on a dome-flat at the highest resolution,
 with very low resolution (hundreds of pixels) corrections based on
 photometry, resulting in photometric systematic uncertainties in the
@@ -360,7 +361,7 @@
 \citep{2013ApJS..205...20M}.  \newtext{We note that the PV3 analysis
   used for the public release includes a flat-field correction
-  measured with a much finer spatial sampling than the PV2 analysis,
+  measured with a much finer spatial sampling than the PV0 analysis,
   with 40 CCD pixels per superpixel.  As a result, some of the
-  fine-grained structure discussed below is corrected in the public
+  fine-grained structure discussed below are corrected in the public
   release (see however the caveats in the discussion section below).}
 
@@ -370,5 +371,5 @@
 \citep{magnier2017.analysis}.  These position measurements are
 used in the astrometric analysis.  The astrometric calibration is
-discussed by \cite{magnier2017.calibration}; for the PV2
+discussed by \cite{magnier2017.calibration}; for the PV0
 dataset, the typical systematic floor is \approx 15 - 20
 milliarcsecond for individual measurements of brighter stars. 
@@ -643,5 +644,5 @@
 strong in the (\gps,\rps,\ips) images, but nearly swamped by fringing
 in \zps, and completely lost to fringing in \yps.  A diagonal banding
-pattern is also seen in \gps and \rps: this feature is thought to be due to
+pattern is also seen in \gps\ and \rps: this feature is thought to be due to
 the lithography process used to generate the CCD.  A blob can also
 been seen covering 4 cells near the center of this chip; this is
@@ -904,7 +905,8 @@
 \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/radial_p1_r.\plotext}
 \caption{Radial run of the four tree-ring trends for \rps: smear
-  ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} + \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$), PSF magnitude
-  residuals ($\delta m_{PSF}$), flat-field, and astrometric residuals
-  ($\delta R$).  } \label{fig:effects.vs.radius}
+  ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} + \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$, pixel$^2$), PSF magnitude
+  residuals ($\delta m_{PSF}$, magnitudes), flat-field (fractional
+  deviation), and astrometric residuals
+  ($\delta R$, arcseconds).  } \label{fig:effects.vs.radius}
 \end{center}
 \end{figure*}
@@ -915,6 +917,8 @@
 \begin{center}
 \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/radial_p2_r.\plotext}
-\caption{Radial run of the derivative of the smear ($\frac{\partial (\sigma^2_{major} + \sigma^2_{minor})}{\partial radius}$)
-  and astrometric residuals ($\delta R$) for \rps. 
+\caption{Radial run of the derivative of the smear
+  ($\frac{\partial (\sigma^2_{major} + \sigma^2_{minor})}{\partial
+    radius}$, pixels)
+  and astrometric residuals ($\delta R$, arcseconds) for \rps. 
 } \label{fig:dsmear.and.astrom}
 \end{center}
@@ -928,5 +932,6 @@
 \caption{Radial run of
  the derivative of the astrometric residuals ($\frac{\partial \delta
-   R}{\partial radius}$) and the flat-field for \rps.} \label{fig:dastrom.and.flat}
+   R}{\partial radius}$, pixels pixel$^{-1}$) and the flat-field
+ (fractional deviation) for \rps.} \label{fig:dastrom.and.flat}
 \end{center}
 \end{figure*}
@@ -939,5 +944,5 @@
 
 Second, the radial derivative of the smear is anti-correlated with the
-radial component of the astrometric residuals
+radial component of the astrometric residuals.
 \newtext{Figure~\ref{fig:dsmear.and.astrom} shows the radial run of
   $\frac{\partial (\sigma^2_{major} + \sigma^2_{minor})}{\partial radius}$
@@ -1032,5 +1037,5 @@
 \label{sec:discussion}
 
-These trends measured above (Section~\ref{sec:tree.rings}) help to
+The trends measured above (Section~\ref{sec:tree.rings}) help to
 illuminate the underlying causes of these different effects.
 
@@ -1201,5 +1206,5 @@
 tree rings.  These plate-scale changes introduce flat-field errors on
 the scale of \approx 1 millimagnitude and astrometric errors on the
-scale of 2-3 milliarcseconds.  The observed relationship between the
+scale of 5-10 milliarcseconds.  The observed relationship between the
 flat-field deviations and the radial derivative of the astrometric
 deviations confirms this interpretation \citep[see also discussion
@@ -1282,6 +1287,6 @@
 
 \bibliographystyle{apj}
-\bibliography{lib}{}
-%\input{diffusion.bbl}
+%\bibliography{lib}{}
+\input{diffusion.bbl}
 
 \end{document}