...
Speaking of classification, will we also have a flag like 'HEAVY_CR'?
(Burnett) The "IM" prefix was inserted by me when I absorbed Bill's values. Since it stands for Insightful Miner, and it is not clear that we will always use exactly Bill's trees for this, I would suggest that we drop it from the names. "COREPROB" is confusing, it really means goodpsfprob. And there is no longer anything to correspond to IMPSFERRPED.
More practically, since there would be actually cuts on each of the IM variables to define "gammas" to get into the FT1 gamma file, those need to be clear. Should they be strict, so that the events are highly likely to be gammas, or loose, to allow a user to choose the level of contamination with respect to poorly measured energy, direction, or presense of background? Given this possibility, how many different Aeff and PSFs will we calculate.
In the case where there are multiple parallel trees for the classification analysis, the best cuts are probably dependent on which tree was used: this implies more variables, or fields in a variable, to describe which path the analysis took.
10. CONVERSION_POINT
(Digel) This was originally imagined as a way for end users to decide whether they wanted to believe whether a particular event was not a charged particle and was well reconstructed. Eventually, we will have an event display server available that will make this much easier for users, who would otherwise have to find the geometry of the LAT some place.
...
I recommend removing CONVERSION_POINT.
(Burnett) I agree. The filtering implied by this is already incorporated into the classification tree variables.
11. PULSE_PHASE and ORBITAL_PHASE
...