Index: trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt
===================================================================
--- trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt	(revision 41324)
+++ trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt	(revision 41333)
@@ -16,5 +16,5 @@
 data sets.
 
-**** TBD : all of these items until Abstract
+** added to the end of Section 3 Psphot Design Goals
 
 For many of the sections, the reader would benefit by starting with
@@ -77,5 +77,7 @@
 state the same for galaxy astrometry, fluxes and colors.
 
-**** TBD
+** for each section, we have added a summary of where the values may
+   be found, and added an overall summary of this issue to the end of
+   the Basic Analysis section.
 
 A detail of the code is presented (variable names, etc) that imply
@@ -96,5 +98,5 @@
 that the photometric goals are achieved
 
-**** TBD see note section Forced PSF Phot
+**** TBD : discuss relative quality of chip, forced, stack photometry
 
 - Sec 7, where the image differencing detections and photometry is used
@@ -124,5 +126,5 @@
 in one place would be a useful service.
 
-**** TBD
+**** TBD : summarize the lessons learned
 
 Abstract:
@@ -219,5 +221,9 @@
 applying to bright sources, and another addessing all (==faint) sources.
 
-**** TBD 
+** We have expanded the discussion in 4.7 (Faint Source Analysis) to
+   explain which of the steps in the bright source pass are repeated
+   and which are skipped.  We refer back to the specific sections and
+   explain where there are detailed differences in the bright and
+   faint versions of the same step.
 
 Sec 4.1:
@@ -227,9 +233,14 @@
 of Sec 4.8) that the PSF model for an image is actually selected.
 
-**** TBD 
 ** The aperture correction is measured at the end of the bright-star
-** pass, at which point the PSF model is chosen and fixed.  A final
-** aperture correction is measured at the end of the full analysis,
-** but only for the PSF model class selected earlier.
+   pass, at which point the PSF model is chosen and fixed for the rest
+   of the analysis.  A final aperture correction is measured at the
+   end of the full analysis, but only for the PSF model class selected
+   earlier.  But for PV3, the PDF model was fixed to the PS1_V1
+   version, so this selection was not performed. We have added text to
+   4.5.3 to explain how the aperture correction is used to select a
+   PSF model, and that only the single model form was used for PV3.
+   We also note in section 4.8 that we re-measure the aperture
+   correction at the end with the other sources subtracted.
 
 Sec 4.3:
@@ -264,5 +275,7 @@
 measure is used.
 
-**** TBD: model?
+** added a table showing sky recovery vs stellar density from
+   simulations using the standard psphot analysis vs other methods,
+   added discussion of the results.
 
 Sec 4.4.1:
@@ -319,4 +332,6 @@
 
 **** TBD: SHOW SOME EXAMPLES of PSF variations 
+     choose 3 exposures: 1 with good IQ, one with bad IQ, but round, one with bad IQ but not round,
+     plot some IQ stats (Mxx - Myy) / (Mxx + Myy)
 
 - Please state whether the PSF model is this set of formulae
@@ -344,5 +359,6 @@
 sources by GAIA.
 
-***** TBD
+** This is an interesting suggestion, but out of the scope of this
+   effort.  we have added this to the lessons-learned discussion
 
 Sec 4.5.3:
@@ -419,10 +435,12 @@
 and presented as a future development effort.
 
-**** TBD
+**** TBD : wording of full PSF model section 4.6.6
 
 - Remind the reader that the 4 independent parameters includes a local sky
 value.
 
-**** TBD: double-check if the sky is allowed to float in this step
+** in fact, we do not allow the sky to float; fixed the wording to
+   specify the *3* independent parameters and to explain why we do not
+   allow the sky to float.
 
 - "remaining flux should be below 1\sigma significance" ->
@@ -437,5 +455,5 @@
 range.
 
-**** TBD: was the turned on for PV3?
+**** TBD: double-star mode: was this turned on for PV3? ppSim to show recovery
 
 Sec 4.7:
@@ -444,5 +462,7 @@
 could be included here.
 
-**** TBD: include detection limit description
+** This was a definitely gap.  We have added a subsection (4.9)
+   discussing the completeness and contamination, using both simulated
+   and real data to illustrate these effects
 
 Sec 4.8:
@@ -501,5 +521,9 @@
 atmospheric transparency variations.
 
-**** TBD
+** we have added discussion and some plots showing the repeatability
+   of the brightest stars for PSF and aperture magnitudes.  We also
+   discuss the long-term site characteristics and the impact of the
+   atmosphere on the photometric calibration, relating back to the
+   ubercal work of Schlaley et al 2012.
 
 Sec 5:
@@ -534,5 +558,5 @@
 compare well to those in the PS1 catalog?
 
-**** TBD: compare to SDSS
+**** TBD: compare Petrosian mags to SDSS for some example
 
 Sec 5.3:
@@ -561,5 +585,5 @@
 error of this approximation should be stated.
 
-**** TBD: model
+**** TBD: model central pixel errors for Sersic models
 
 Sec 5.4:
@@ -626,5 +650,5 @@
 discussion would be Zackay & Ofek 2016.
 
-**** TBD
+** added references and updated the text
 
 - The terms "skycell" and "warp image" are first used here without
@@ -664,5 +688,5 @@
 and if not, which code would it be most similar to?
 
-**** TBD
+**** TBD : check on GREAT challenge to compare code 
 
 - Define "KSB" and "HFK" references in-line
@@ -789,5 +813,5 @@
 - Some additional references should be included; some suggestions above.
 
-**** TBD
+** added additional references
 
 ** Also, we have added Danny Farrow (UK Durham & MPIA) to the authors