jwst-gc pipeline monitor

Stage ladder

Products per filter

* = the product name carries no _o<obs> token and this field has more than one observation, so the count cannot be attributed to 1182/o004.

Astrometry — m2 checkpoint

“tiles ok” is not a tolerance. measure_offset_grid runs with no max_off_mas, and astrometry_offsets sets off_ok=True whenever that is None — so N/N counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent peak, however large the offset. The column that carries the gate is worst tile, against 15 mas.

Provenance

Astrometry paper — release validation

From 2026-07-19_postrecat/summary.json, written 2026-07-19T08:14 by the paper's own post_recat_validation.py. Its gates (vs-anchor > 30 mas, mode flip > 10 mas, degenerate-pair drift ≥ 0.1 mag) are applied there, with the sanctioned window-swept offset histogram over the full vetted catalogs — nothing on this page recomputes them.

Photometric certifiers: none recorded.

Queue

No jobs in the queue for this field.

Findings

• fail
  paper validation: 1182/f115w: 92.7 mas vs anchor f200w (>30)

  Reported by the paper's own post-recat validation (scripts/post_recat_validation.py), which applies its gates with the sanctioned window-swept offset histogram over the full vetted catalogs. Not recomputed here.

  2026-07-19_postrecat/summary.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• fail
  paper validation: 1182/f356w: p60/p90 offset modes differ by 25.8 mas -> bimodal/mixed product

  Reported by the paper's own post-recat validation (scripts/post_recat_validation.py), which applies its gates with the sanctioned window-swept offset histogram over the full vetted catalogs. Not recomputed here.

  2026-07-19_postrecat/summary.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• fail
  paper validation: 1182/f356w: 48.7 mas vs anchor f200w (>30)

  Reported by the paper's own post-recat validation (scripts/post_recat_validation.py), which applies its gates with the sanctioned window-swept offset histogram over the full vetted catalogs. Not recomputed here.

  2026-07-19_postrecat/summary.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• fail
  paper validation: 1182/f444w: p60/p90 offset modes differ by 105.7 mas -> bimodal/mixed product

  Reported by the paper's own post-recat validation (scripts/post_recat_validation.py), which applies its gates with the sanctioned window-swept offset histogram over the full vetted catalogs. Not recomputed here.

  2026-07-19_postrecat/summary.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• fail
  4 validated catalog(s) no longer on disk: 1182/f115w, 1182/f200w, 1182/f356w, 1182/f444w

  2026-07-19_postrecat/summary.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• fail
  F115W_o004: 39/192 exposures misaligned vs their visit consensus

  An exposure is misaligned when its offset exceeds 2.0 mas AND is significant against the peak error bars. At m2 this CORRECTS the offsets table and stops the run; the crf frames must be regenerated before cataloging continues.

  checkpoint_m2_F115W_o004_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  Affected: 8/8 detectors — spread across detectors, so the frame as a whole moved: look at the offsets table and whether these exposures were regenerated from _cal after the table changed. fix_alignment SKIPS a frame that already has a RAOFFSET header, so correcting the table alone leaves stale frames in place; regenerate the working copy from _cal instead of re-applying on top.

  Misaligned by detector

  nrca211/24

  nrca37/24

  nrca46/24

  nrcb14/24

  nrca13/24

  nrcb23/24

  nrcb33/24

  nrcb42/24

  Diagnostic writeupD2 — internal astrometric repeatability · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  visit	detector	dRA (mas)	dDec (mas)	off (mas)	contrast	pairs	window ("")
  1	nrca1	1.8	-1.3	2.3	811.0	16748	3.0
  1	nrca1	1.9	-1.4	2.3	795.0	16438	3.0
  1	nrca1	1.3	-1.6	2.0	981.0	16315	3.0
  1	nrca2	-2.0	-0.7	2.1	1,004.0	52662	3.0
  1	nrca2	0.7	-1.9	2.0	1,295.0	60088	3.0
  1	nrca2	0.7	-2.1	2.3	1,320.0	59301	3.0
  1	nrca2	-2.1	1.8	2.7	1,703.0	60826	3.0
  1	nrca2	-1.7	1.5	2.2	1,615.0	62682	3.0
  1	nrca3	1.5	-1.8	2.3	968.0	23016	3.0
  1	nrca3	1.3	-2.0	2.4	961.0	23230	3.0
  1	nrca4	-2.0	1.2	2.3	1,248.0	46705	3.0
  1	nrca4	-1.9	1.3	2.3	1,272.0	47784	3.0
  1	nrca4	-1.9	0.8	2.1	1,305.0	51099	3.0
  1	nrca4	-2.3	1.1	2.6	1,724.0	57439	3.0
  1	nrca4	-1.8	0.9	2.0	1,644.0	58342	3.0
  1	nrcb1	-1.9	0.9	2.2	955.5	121773	3.0
  1	nrcb1	-2.0	0.4	2.1	774.0	106069	3.0
  1	nrcb1	-2.1	0.7	2.2	889.0	100761	3.0
  1	nrcb2	1.8	-2.0	2.7	1,764.0	77382	3.0
  1	nrcb2	1.6	-1.8	2.4	1,763.0	78851	3.0
  1	nrcb3	1.9	-1.4	2.4	1,005.0	129028	3.0
  1	nrcb3	1.9	-1.4	2.4	1,038.0	131443	3.0
  1	nrcb4	1.7	-1.2	2.1	1,454.5	160202	3.0
  2	nrca2	-2.4	0.8	2.5	729.0	16070	3.0
  2	nrca2	-2.4	0.6	2.5	682.0	16363	3.0
  2	nrca2	-2.2	0.4	2.2	525.0	19217	3.0
  2	nrca2	-2.1	0.0	2.1	516.0	19654	3.0
  2	nrca2	2.1	-0.5	2.2	991.0	24834	3.0
  2	nrca2	0.2	2.5	2.5	722.0	20311	3.0
  2	nrca3	-2.2	0.7	2.3	1,159.0	99542	3.0
  2	nrca3	-2.3	0.7	2.4	1,146.0	99956	3.0
  2	nrca3	3.1	-1.1	3.3	1,927.0	83238	3.0
  2	nrca3	3.0	-1.1	3.2	1,941.0	84247	3.0
  2	nrca3	2.1	-0.2	2.1	1,066.0	75431	3.0
  2	nrca4	-2.5	1.7	3.0	1,076.0	22246	3.0
  2	nrcb1	-2.6	1.5	3.0	953.5	95075	3.0
  2	nrcb2	-2.6	1.2	2.9	900.0	92764	3.0
  2	nrcb3	-1.4	3.0	3.3	1,683.0	83366	3.0
  2	nrcb4	-2.0	1.7	2.6	1,254.0	108117	3.0

  Existing figures

  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
  • per_exposure_bars_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • scatter_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f115w-f200w_f356w-f444w.png figures
• fail
  F200W_o004: 20/192 exposures misaligned vs their visit consensus

  An exposure is misaligned when its offset exceeds 2.0 mas AND is significant against the peak error bars. At m2 this CORRECTS the offsets table and stops the run; the crf frames must be regenerated before cataloging continues.

  checkpoint_m2_F200W_o004_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  Affected: 5/8 detectors — spread across detectors, so the frame as a whole moved: look at the offsets table and whether these exposures were regenerated from _cal after the table changed. fix_alignment SKIPS a frame that already has a RAOFFSET header, so correcting the table alone leaves stale frames in place; regenerate the working copy from _cal instead of re-applying on top.

  Misaligned by detector

  nrca39/24

  nrca24/24

  nrcb23/24

  nrcb32/24

  nrcb42/24

  nrca10/24

  nrca40/24

  nrcb10/24

  Diagnostic writeupD2 — internal astrometric repeatability · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  visit	detector	dRA (mas)	dDec (mas)	off (mas)	contrast	pairs	window ("")
  1	nrca3	-2.0	-0.5	2.0	474.1	1531684	3.0
  1	nrca3	-2.2	-0.5	2.2	483.0	1526481	3.0
  1	nrcb2	2.4	-1.1	2.7	528.3	1596473	3.0
  1	nrcb2	2.3	-0.9	2.5	500.9	1577438	3.0
  1	nrcb3	2.1	-1.6	2.6	488.3	1683930	3.0
  1	nrcb3	2.2	-1.4	2.6	466.2	1695835	3.0
  1	nrcb4	2.0	-1.0	2.2	510.9	1612240	3.0
  1	nrcb4	1.9	-0.8	2.1	492.6	1603349	3.0
  2	nrca2	2.9	-0.2	2.9	378.4	1651805	3.0
  2	nrca2	2.0	-1.5	2.5	493.8	1650619	3.0
  2	nrca2	3.0	0.6	3.1	500.1	1593289	3.0
  2	nrca2	3.4	-0.1	3.4	325.9	1594609	3.0
  2	nrca3	-3.0	1.4	3.3	462.3	1602230	3.0
  2	nrca3	-3.0	1.3	3.2	462.9	1601021	3.0
  2	nrca3	-2.8	0.1	2.8	345.1	1532435	3.0
  2	nrca3	-3.0	0.1	3.0	345.9	1524191	3.0
  2	nrca3	2.1	-0.9	2.3	379.3	1643384	3.0
  2	nrca3	1.1	-2.0	2.3	346.1	1639462	3.0
  2	nrca3	2.0	-0.8	2.2	402.2	1665081	3.0
  2	nrcb2	1.5	-1.3	2.0	550.6	1642954	3.0

  Existing figures

  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f200w_virac_mag_astrom_test.png astrometry_diag
  • per_exposure_bars_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • scatter_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • seam_characterize_f200w.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  m7: products come from 2 different pipeline tags (unattributed)

  2026-09-02_PR621_6c317d3-dirty (21), 2026-08-27_PR574_3bdf55f-dirty (12). Image and catalog must be deployed from the SAME pipeline run; a mixed-tag set is not releasable as one product. NOTE: the sidecars carry no observation token and this field has several observations, so the mix may span them rather than sitting inside this one.

  catalogs/*m7*.prov.json

  what is affected, and why

  This happens when filters are re-run at different times and only some are regenerated — a partial rerun, or a merge that picked up an older per-filter product. The fix is to re-run the lagging filters at the current tag, not to re-stamp: the tag records which code wrote the numbers.

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  pipeline tag	products
  2026-09-02_PR621_6c317d3-dirty	21
  2026-08-27_PR574_3bdf55f-dirty	12

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  m8: products come from 3 different pipeline tags (unattributed)

  2026-08-27_PR574_3bdf55f-dirty (4), 2026-09-02_PR621_6c317d3-dirty (3), 2026-09-04_PR769_b0e994e (3). Image and catalog must be deployed from the SAME pipeline run; a mixed-tag set is not releasable as one product. NOTE: the sidecars carry no observation token and this field has several observations, so the mix may span them rather than sitting inside this one.

  catalogs/*m8*.prov.json

  what is affected, and why

  This happens when filters are re-run at different times and only some are regenerated — a partial rerun, or a merge that picked up an older per-filter product. The fix is to re-run the lagging filters at the current tag, not to re-stamp: the tag records which code wrote the numbers.

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  pipeline tag	products
  2026-08-27_PR574_3bdf55f-dirty	4
  2026-09-02_PR621_6c317d3-dirty	3
  2026-09-04_PR769_b0e994e	3

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  m7: 33 product(s) stamped with a -dirty tag

  The tree had uncommitted changes, so the tag does not identify the code that ran. Fine for a development run; not for a release.

  catalogs/*m7*.prov.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  m8: 7 product(s) stamped with a -dirty tag

  The tree had uncommitted changes, so the tag does not identify the code that ran. Fine for a development run; not for a release.

  catalogs/*m8*.prov.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F115W: 34/192 exposures misaligned vs their visit consensus (checkpoint predates the frames)

  An exposure is misaligned when its offset exceeds 2.0 mas AND is significant against the peak error bars. At m2 this CORRECTS the offsets table and stops the run; the crf frames must be regenerated before cataloging continues. NOTE: the reduced frames are NEWER than this checkpoint, so the correction it triggered has probably already been applied — re-run the m2 checkpoint to confirm rather than treating this as current.

  checkpoint_m2_F115W_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  Affected: 8/8 detectors — spread across detectors, so the frame as a whole moved: look at the offsets table and whether these exposures were regenerated from _cal after the table changed. fix_alignment SKIPS a frame that already has a RAOFFSET header, so correcting the table alone leaves stale frames in place; regenerate the working copy from _cal instead of re-applying on top.

  Misaligned by detector

  nrca210/24

  nrcb15/24

  nrca34/24

  nrca44/24

  nrca13/24

  nrcb23/24

  nrcb33/24

  nrcb42/24

  Diagnostic writeupD2 — internal astrometric repeatability · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  visit	detector	dRA (mas)	dDec (mas)	off (mas)	contrast	pairs	window ("")
  1	nrca1	1.9	-1.4	2.3	769.0	14677	3.0
  1	nrca1	1.9	-1.4	2.4	773.0	14399	3.0
  1	nrca1	1.3	-1.7	2.1	879.0	14016	3.0
  1	nrca2	1.2	-2.0	2.4	1,510.0	54157	3.0
  1	nrca2	1.3	-2.3	2.7	1,520.0	53482	3.0
  1	nrca2	2.0	0.6	2.0	1,499.0	57628	3.0
  1	nrca2	-1.5	1.5	2.1	1,501.0	55873	3.0
  1	nrca3	1.7	-1.9	2.5	1,041.0	20837	3.0
  1	nrca3	1.6	-2.1	2.6	1,018.0	20533	3.0
  1	nrca4	-2.0	1.0	2.2	1,185.0	42658	3.0
  1	nrca4	-1.8	1.1	2.1	1,173.0	43240	3.0
  1	nrca4	-2.3	0.8	2.5	1,500.0	52765	3.0
  1	nrcb1	-1.9	0.6	2.0	859.5	121050	3.0
  1	nrcb1	-2.0	0.9	2.2	962.0	121663	3.0
  1	nrcb1	-2.2	0.3	2.2	772.0	106062	3.0
  1	nrcb1	-2.2	0.6	2.2	889.5	100755	3.0
  1	nrcb2	1.8	-2.1	2.7	1,770.0	77377	3.0
  1	nrcb2	1.5	-1.9	2.4	1,762.0	78849	3.0
  1	nrcb3	1.9	-1.6	2.5	1,020.0	129009	3.0
  1	nrcb3	1.9	-1.5	2.4	1,052.0	131406	3.0
  1	nrcb4	1.6	-1.3	2.0	1,461.0	160261	3.0
  2	nrca2	-2.1	1.0	2.3	558.0	14960	3.0
  2	nrca2	-2.2	0.8	2.4	572.0	15055	3.0
  2	nrca2	2.3	-0.4	2.3	798.0	23376	3.0
  2	nrca2	2.4	-0.6	2.5	856.0	23857	3.0
  2	nrca2	1.6	1.4	2.2	946.0	19365	3.0
  2	nrca2	0.4	2.5	2.5	644.0	19498	3.0
  2	nrca3	2.9	-1.3	3.2	1,871.0	77316	3.0
  2	nrca3	2.9	-1.2	3.1	1,901.0	77805	3.0
  2	nrca4	-2.4	1.5	2.9	915.0	20844	3.0
  2	nrcb1	-2.7	1.6	3.1	975.0	95083	3.0
  2	nrcb2	-2.8	1.3	3.1	902.5	92758	3.0
  2	nrcb3	-1.3	3.0	3.3	1,787.0	83502	3.0
  2	nrcb4	-2.0	1.8	2.7	1,277.0	108052	3.0

  Existing figures

  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
  • per_exposure_bars_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • scatter_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f115w-f200w_f356w-f444w.png figures
• warn
  F200W: 17/192 exposures misaligned vs their visit consensus (checkpoint predates the frames)

  An exposure is misaligned when its offset exceeds 2.0 mas AND is significant against the peak error bars. At m2 this CORRECTS the offsets table and stops the run; the crf frames must be regenerated before cataloging continues. NOTE: the reduced frames are NEWER than this checkpoint, so the correction it triggered has probably already been applied — re-run the m2 checkpoint to confirm rather than treating this as current.

  checkpoint_m2_F200W_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  Affected: 5/8 detectors — spread across detectors, so the frame as a whole moved: look at the offsets table and whether these exposures were regenerated from _cal after the table changed. fix_alignment SKIPS a frame that already has a RAOFFSET header, so correcting the table alone leaves stale frames in place; regenerate the working copy from _cal instead of re-applying on top.

  Misaligned by detector

  nrca37/24

  nrcb26/24

  nrcb32/24

  nrca11/24

  nrca21/24

  nrca40/24

  nrcb10/24

  nrcb40/24

  Diagnostic writeupD2 — internal astrometric repeatability · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  visit	detector	dRA (mas)	dDec (mas)	off (mas)	contrast	pairs	window ("")
  1	nrca3	1.5	-1.6	2.2	485.0	1574868	3.0
  1	nrca3	1.5	-1.6	2.2	484.7	1568007	3.0
  1	nrcb2	1.6	-1.4	2.2	591.6	1456258	3.0
  1	nrcb2	1.9	-1.1	2.2	580.0	1457973	3.0
  1	nrcb2	2.6	-1.1	2.9	532.5	1595834	3.0
  1	nrcb2	2.6	-0.9	2.8	513.5	1576854	3.0
  1	nrcb3	2.1	-1.3	2.4	453.8	1683608	3.0
  1	nrcb3	2.2	-1.1	2.4	423.6	1695358	3.0
  2	nrca1	1.4	-1.8	2.3	555.4	1557971	3.0
  2	nrca2	2.2	-0.1	2.2	367.4	1597747	3.0
  2	nrca3	-1.9	-0.9	2.1	513.8	1516236	3.0
  2	nrca3	2.3	-1.6	2.8	410.7	1634991	3.0
  2	nrca3	1.2	-2.7	3.0	356.0	1633031	3.0
  2	nrca3	2.0	-1.0	2.2	384.6	1655462	3.0
  2	nrca3	2.1	-1.4	2.5	429.4	1661571	3.0
  2	nrcb2	2.6	-2.1	3.3	556.5	1642979	3.0
  2	nrcb2	2.7	-1.6	3.1	553.0	1630273	3.0

  Existing figures

  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f200w_virac_mag_astrom_test.png astrometry_diag
  • per_exposure_bars_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • scatter_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • seam_characterize_f200w.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F115W visit 1: worst tile 28.3 mas at cell (4,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F115W_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  14/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 1.12 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (4,0)	28.3	-27.9	-4.6	38.0	107415
  (3,0)	22.7	-20.8	8.9	38.5	101620
  (0,5)	22.0	21.2	6.1	38.0	44048
  (5,0)	20.7	-19.5	-7.1	36.0	43555
  (0,3)	20.3	17.5	10.4	44.0	58471
  (5,1)	19.4	-18.8	-5.0	63.0	66239
  (1,4)	17.7	17.0	5.0	35.0	138174
  (4,1)	17.3	-15.9	-6.8	39.0	115703
  (4,2)	16.6	-13.6	-9.6	39.0	106011
  (5,3)	16.5	-6.0	-15.4	65.0	67102
  (0,1)	16.5	-9.8	13.2	37.0	23818
  (1,5)	15.9	15.6	-3.4	61.0	76122
  (5,2)	15.2	-11.1	-10.4	72.0	70319
  (2,0)	15.0	-13.4	6.8	40.0	47001

  Existing figures

  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
  • per_exposure_bars_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • scatter_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f115w-f200w_f356w-f444w.png figures
• warn
  F115W visit 2: worst tile 18.2 mas at cell (0,5) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F115W_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  7/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 3.95 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (0,5)	18.2	16.1	-8.5	40.0	82465
  (3,2)	16.7	-13.1	-10.3	52.0	85788
  (1,0)	16.6	-10.5	12.8	41.5	92834
  (1,5)	16.4	13.7	-9.0	41.0	120600
  (5,4)	15.9	10.7	-11.7	27.5	105400
  (1,2)	15.6	9.5	-12.4	45.0	120063
  (0,2)	15.5	10.5	-11.4	38.0	130010

  Existing figures

  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
  • per_exposure_bars_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • scatter_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f115w-f200w_f356w-f444w.png figures
• warn
  F115W_o004 visit 1: worst tile 25.2 mas at cell (4,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F115W_o004_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  11/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 1.18 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (4,0)	25.2	-24.5	-5.7	42.0	112425
  (3,0)	23.5	-22.0	8.2	40.0	107120
  (0,5)	21.9	21.0	6.0	38.0	44047
  (5,0)	20.7	-19.8	-6.2	38.0	44784
  (0,3)	19.7	16.9	10.0	44.0	58505
  (5,1)	19.3	-18.8	-4.6	65.0	69182
  (1,4)	17.5	16.8	4.8	35.0	138103
  (5,3)	16.9	-6.1	-15.7	66.0	67101
  (1,5)	16.1	15.7	-3.7	62.0	76098
  (4,1)	16.1	-15.0	-5.8	43.0	125837
  (2,0)	15.5	-14.8	4.6	37.0	49929

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F115W_o004 visit 2: worst tile 20.2 mas at cell (1,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F115W_o004_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  9/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.71 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (1,0)	20.2	-11.1	16.9	48.5	97308
  (0,5)	18.5	16.1	-9.1	41.0	82469
  (0,0)	18.4	-10.1	15.4	56.0	136692
  (0,1)	18.4	-10.9	14.8	41.0	106179
  (3,0)	17.0	-12.0	12.0	93.0	69598
  (1,1)	16.7	-8.9	14.1	45.0	109970
  (1,5)	16.4	13.9	-8.8	40.5	120747
  (3,2)	15.8	-14.9	-5.4	24.5	88744
  (5,4)	15.7	10.4	-11.7	27.5	105542

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F200W visit 1: worst tile 26.3 mas at cell (5,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F200W_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  5/36 cells exceed 15 mas, and every one of them is on the mosaic EDGE — that is usually thin coverage (few exposures, so few pairs per cell) rather than a distortion error. Check the pair counts in the table before treating it as a defect. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.16 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (5,0)	26.3	-22.5	-13.7	12.5	314496
  (4,0)	25.4	-24.2	-7.8	23.0	45083
  (3,0)	24.8	-22.5	10.4	15.0	43920
  (0,5)	21.8	19.1	10.4	17.7	237127
  (0,2)	15.0	-11.4	9.8	10.3	225566

  Existing figures

  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f200w_virac_mag_astrom_test.png astrometry_diag
  • per_exposure_bars_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • scatter_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • seam_characterize_f200w.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F200W visit 2: worst tile 15.6 mas at cell (5,1) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F200W_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  1/36 cells exceed 15 mas, and every one of them is on the mosaic EDGE — that is usually thin coverage (few exposures, so few pairs per cell) rather than a distortion error. Check the pair counts in the table before treating it as a defect. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.23 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (5,1)	15.6	-9.6	-12.3	12.5	157777

  Existing figures

  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f200w_virac_mag_astrom_test.png astrometry_diag
  • per_exposure_bars_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • scatter_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • seam_characterize_f200w.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F200W_o004 visit 1: worst tile 26.4 mas at cell (5,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F200W_o004_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  4/36 cells exceed 15 mas, and every one of them is on the mosaic EDGE — that is usually thin coverage (few exposures, so few pairs per cell) rather than a distortion error. Check the pair counts in the table before treating it as a defect. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.27 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (5,0)	26.4	-22.6	-13.7	12.5	314089
  (4,0)	26.0	-24.8	-7.7	25.0	45296
  (3,0)	25.2	-23.1	10.1	15.0	44176
  (0,5)	22.5	20.1	10.0	17.7	237181

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F200W_o004 visit 2: worst tile 15.5 mas at cell (5,1) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F200W_o004_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  3/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.60 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (5,1)	15.5	-9.4	-12.3	12.5	156157
  (3,2)	15.4	11.6	10.2	18.0	39057
  (0,1)	15.1	-11.2	10.2	15.0	45792

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F356W visit 1: worst tile 28.1 mas at cell (5,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F356W_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  24/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.39 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (5,0)	28.1	-23.2	-15.8	32.0	45199
  (4,0)	24.7	-23.6	-7.3	66.0	74958
  (3,0)	22.8	-18.1	-13.9	47.0	74393
  (5,1)	22.7	-22.2	-4.6	45.0	56155
  (1,4)	22.6	20.0	10.5	56.0	69368
  (0,5)	22.6	21.3	7.7	47.0	41082
  (5,3)	22.3	9.6	-20.1	47.0	49338
  (0,2)	21.6	-16.7	13.8	33.0	39457
  (2,0)	21.4	-20.6	5.7	43.0	62029
  (4,1)	21.2	-20.0	-7.0	29.5	94965
  (0,0)	20.4	-17.9	9.7	51.0	53565
  (2,4)	19.9	18.3	-7.9	61.0	78562
  (0,1)	19.7	-13.4	14.4	42.0	47367
  (5,5)	19.6	15.7	-11.7	46.0	54185
  (5,4)	18.9	17.1	-8.1	67.0	70407
  (4,5)	18.8	17.2	-7.6	56.0	67102
  (3,4)	18.6	14.6	-11.5	52.0	80338
  (2,5)	18.6	17.5	-6.2	60.0	67918
  (1,5)	18.4	17.2	6.5	43.0	55246
  (4,2)	17.5	-12.3	-12.5	60.0	75393
  (0,3)	17.5	14.7	9.5	30.0	43333
  (1,1)	17.1	-16.4	4.8	47.0	50789
  (2,3)	16.9	15.3	7.1	51.0	65409
  (1,0)	15.2	-11.1	10.4	44.0	59283

  Existing figures

  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w.pdf figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w.png figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w_ice.pdf figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w_ice.png figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w_noice.pdf figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w_noice.png figures
• warn
  F356W visit 2: worst tile 25.7 mas at cell (1,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F356W_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  13/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.21 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (1,0)	25.7	-17.2	19.1	66.0	73073
  (0,0)	23.8	-17.5	16.1	70.0	66327
  (0,1)	21.7	-16.7	13.9	49.0	68728
  (3,5)	20.6	19.5	-6.6	53.0	55365
  (5,5)	20.1	18.3	-8.4	53.0	56587
  (1,1)	17.7	-13.1	11.8	60.0	72283
  (3,0)	16.6	-13.3	-10.0	57.0	69434
  (2,1)	16.5	-14.3	-8.3	45.0	71076
  (4,0)	16.0	-12.4	-10.1	55.0	70420
  (5,1)	15.9	-11.4	-11.1	22.0	36841
  (0,3)	15.5	-9.8	-12.0	38.0	48367
  (1,3)	15.3	12.4	-8.8	48.0	62046
  (3,2)	15.0	10.5	10.8	41.0	63296

  Existing figures

  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w.pdf figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w.png figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w_ice.pdf figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w_ice.png figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w_noice.pdf figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w_noice.png figures
• warn
  F356W_o004 visit 1: worst tile 28.2 mas at cell (5,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F356W_o004_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  24/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.30 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (5,0)	28.2	-23.0	-16.4	32.0	45148
  (4,0)	24.3	-23.3	-7.1	64.0	75564
  (0,5)	23.6	22.2	7.9	47.0	41147
  (3,0)	22.5	-18.3	-13.1	47.0	74351
  (1,4)	22.4	20.0	10.2	55.0	69447
  (5,3)	22.2	9.1	-20.3	47.0	49337
  (4,1)	22.0	-21.0	-6.6	30.0	96032
  (0,2)	21.9	-17.2	13.5	33.0	40255
  (2,0)	21.8	-21.0	6.2	44.0	62405
  (5,1)	21.8	-21.3	-4.4	44.0	57092
  (0,0)	21.1	-18.8	9.5	51.0	56560
  (2,4)	20.3	18.4	-8.5	60.0	78559
  (5,5)	20.0	15.7	-12.4	44.0	54185
  (4,5)	19.7	17.6	-9.0	57.0	67101
  (0,1)	19.1	-12.4	14.5	42.0	47993
  (5,4)	19.0	17.0	-8.5	67.0	70328
  (3,4)	19.0	14.5	-12.2	52.0	80315
  (2,5)	18.7	17.7	-6.2	60.0	67920
  (1,1)	18.2	-17.3	5.5	46.0	51975
  (1,5)	18.0	16.5	7.2	43.0	55245
  (0,3)	17.6	14.9	9.5	31.0	43336
  (4,2)	16.6	-11.4	-12.1	62.0	75326
  (4,3)	15.4	-10.0	-11.7	56.0	70798
  (1,0)	15.1	-11.6	9.6	44.0	60146

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F356W_o004 visit 2: worst tile 25.6 mas at cell (1,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F356W_o004_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  16/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.30 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (1,0)	25.6	-17.5	18.7	66.0	73732
  (0,0)	23.6	-17.6	15.6	68.0	65075
  (0,1)	21.1	-15.8	14.0	50.0	69839
  (3,5)	20.9	19.5	-7.7	52.0	55291
  (5,5)	19.9	18.4	-7.4	52.0	56587
  (1,1)	18.6	-14.2	12.1	62.0	73205
  (4,0)	17.4	-14.6	-9.4	55.0	71222
  (2,1)	16.6	-14.3	-8.5	46.0	72144
  (2,4)	16.3	13.9	8.4	52.0	72537
  (3,2)	16.0	12.3	10.2	39.0	63976
  (3,0)	15.6	-14.6	5.4	58.0	70731
  (0,3)	15.6	-9.8	-12.1	39.0	48174
  (4,5)	15.5	14.4	-5.8	50.0	69481
  (0,5)	15.4	13.9	6.8	32.0	39130
  (5,1)	15.3	-11.3	-10.2	22.0	36100
  (1,3)	15.0	12.3	-8.6	50.0	62046

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F444W visit 1: worst tile 28.1 mas at cell (5,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F444W_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  25/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.23 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (5,0)	28.1	-23.7	-15.0	43.0	56678
  (4,0)	24.6	-23.1	-8.6	36.5	92347
  (3,0)	24.0	-17.7	-16.1	52.0	89057
  (5,1)	22.9	-22.2	-5.6	47.0	68750
  (0,5)	21.7	19.9	8.5	51.0	45578
  (0,2)	21.6	-14.4	16.1	34.0	43229
  (4,1)	21.0	-19.8	-7.0	34.0	114369
  (5,3)	20.0	9.7	-17.4	55.0	65531
  (0,0)	19.8	-17.6	9.2	51.0	58224
  (2,0)	19.3	-18.3	6.2	41.0	67590
  (1,4)	18.6	16.2	9.1	57.0	82467
  (0,3)	18.3	16.5	7.9	35.0	46924
  (2,5)	18.1	17.1	-6.1	70.0	84410
  (1,0)	18.1	-12.2	13.3	52.0	67143
  (5,5)	17.5	14.6	-9.6	51.0	67882
  (1,1)	17.0	-16.4	4.5	50.0	56506
  (3,4)	16.9	13.8	-9.7	28.5	102575
  (0,1)	16.8	-12.1	11.7	45.0	54653
  (4,2)	16.8	-11.8	-12.0	29.5	96056
  (2,1)	16.4	-14.4	7.8	39.0	64146
  (4,5)	16.2	14.9	6.3	64.0	81879
  (2,4)	16.1	14.0	-7.9	32.5	96743
  (5,4)	15.5	14.0	-6.8	70.0	85874
  (1,5)	15.1	13.5	6.9	44.0	62904
  (5,2)	15.1	-10.4	-11.0	48.0	70453

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F444W visit 2: worst tile 26.0 mas at cell (0,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F444W_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  10/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.15 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (0,0)	26.0	-18.5	18.3	75.0	83615
  (1,0)	25.7	-17.8	18.5	37.0	90487
  (0,1)	20.4	-15.0	13.8	49.0	86258
  (4,0)	18.5	-16.1	-9.3	67.0	83755
  (3,5)	17.9	17.5	3.6	57.0	75547
  (1,1)	17.3	-12.2	12.3	63.0	88667
  (3,0)	17.1	-13.7	-10.1	63.0	81658
  (2,1)	16.7	-14.7	-8.0	50.0	86703
  (5,5)	15.2	14.1	-5.5	56.0	60590
  (2,3)	15.1	12.5	-8.4	52.0	75255

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F444W_o004 visit 1: worst tile 27.9 mas at cell (5,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F444W_o004_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  25/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.22 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (5,0)	27.9	-23.2	-15.5	43.0	56629
  (4,0)	24.4	-23.0	-8.0	36.0	93311
  (3,0)	24.1	-18.1	-15.9	27.0	90172
  (5,1)	22.7	-22.1	-5.2	45.0	68272
  (0,5)	22.6	20.9	8.6	51.0	45645
  (4,1)	20.6	-19.4	-7.0	34.0	114779
  (0,2)	20.3	-12.5	16.0	34.0	44244
  (0,0)	20.1	-17.9	9.0	54.0	63855
  (5,3)	20.0	9.6	-17.6	54.0	65531
  (2,0)	19.4	-18.3	6.4	41.0	68054
  (2,5)	18.7	17.6	-6.2	69.0	84415
  (1,4)	18.7	16.2	9.3	54.0	82393
  (0,1)	18.6	-12.5	13.7	45.0	54657
  (0,3)	18.5	16.5	8.2	35.0	46921
  (1,0)	17.5	-12.2	12.5	51.0	68389
  (1,1)	17.2	-16.7	4.3	51.0	57363
  (3,4)	17.2	13.7	-10.5	28.5	102573
  (5,5)	16.7	14.5	-8.3	49.0	67951
  (4,2)	16.6	-11.3	-12.1	29.5	96706
  (3,5)	16.5	15.2	-6.5	55.0	82275
  (2,4)	16.4	14.2	-8.2	33.5	96659
  (2,1)	16.1	-14.1	7.8	39.0	65041
  (5,4)	16.0	14.2	-7.3	70.0	85856
  (4,5)	15.9	14.9	5.4	63.0	81792
  (5,2)	15.2	-10.3	-11.2	47.0	71188

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F444W_o004 visit 2: worst tile 25.3 mas at cell (1,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F444W_o004_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  10/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.15 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (1,0)	25.3	-17.4	18.4	36.5	91756
  (0,0)	25.0	-18.1	17.2	77.0	83895
  (0,1)	20.4	-15.2	13.6	50.0	87804
  (4,0)	18.7	-16.1	-9.5	67.0	86193
  (3,5)	18.4	17.0	-7.2	54.0	75371
  (1,1)	17.2	-11.7	12.5	31.5	89931
  (3,0)	17.2	-14.4	-9.4	62.0	85009
  (2,1)	16.4	-14.4	-7.9	49.0	88137
  (2,4)	15.4	12.8	8.5	54.0	85317
  (2,3)	15.1	12.0	-9.1	52.0	75123

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  photometric certifiers were not computed in the latest paper run

  Saturation continuity and degenerate-pair flatness are therefore UNKNOWN, not passing. The release gate refuses at >= 0.10 mag (stage_release.CONTINUITY_TOL_MAG); the paper additionally states a < 0.05 mag goal for degenerate-pair flatness — the two numbers differ and are reported as they stand.

  2026-07-19_postrecat/summary.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupD8 — colour diagrams · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  paper analysis ran against dirty checkout(s): brick-jwst-2221, jwst-gc-pipeline

  The recorded git SHA does not identify the code that produced these numbers.

  2026-07-19_postrecat/provenance.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  paper validation last ran 62 days ago (2026-07-19)

  It runs on a SLURM dependency after re-cataloging, so a long gap means it has not seen the recent runs. This is a monitor heuristic, not a paper gate.

  2026-07-19_postrecat/summary.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• ok
  F356W: all 48 exposures within 2.0 mas of consensus

  checkpoint_m2_F356W_latest.json
• ok
  F356W_o004: all 48 exposures within 2.0 mas of consensus

  checkpoint_m2_F356W_o004_latest.json
• ok
  F444W: all 48 exposures within 2.0 mas of consensus

  checkpoint_m2_F444W_latest.json
• ok
  F444W_o004: all 48 exposures within 2.0 mas of consensus

  checkpoint_m2_F444W_o004_latest.json
• ok
  2 different CAL_VER among the sampled frames: 1.14.1.dev43+g4641c6a09, 1.21.0.dev314+g61bd2fe47

  The jwst package version alone does not change the WCS; it is reported because it usually correlates with a CRDS-context change.

  FITS header CAL_VER
• ok
  m7 cross-band product absent

  catalogs/basic_*_photometry_tables_merged_*.fits
• ok
  m8 present (3 file(s))

  catalogs/
• ok
  8 recent log(s), no error signatures

  logs/

Stage ladder

Products per filter

* = the product name carries no _o<obs> token and this field has more than one observation, so the count cannot be attributed to 2221/o001.

Astrometry — m2 checkpoint

“tiles ok” is not a tolerance. measure_offset_grid runs with no max_off_mas, and astrometry_offsets sets off_ok=True whenever that is None — so N/N counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent peak, however large the offset. The column that carries the gate is worst tile, against 15 mas.

Provenance

Astrometry paper — release validation

From 2026-07-19_postrecat/summary.json, written 2026-07-19T08:14 by the paper's own post_recat_validation.py. Its gates (vs-anchor > 30 mas, mode flip > 10 mas, degenerate-pair drift ≥ 0.1 mag) are applied there, with the sanctioned window-swept offset histogram over the full vetted catalogs — nothing on this page recomputes them.

Photometric certifiers: none recorded.

Queue

No jobs in the queue for this field.

Findings

• fail
  6 validated catalog(s) no longer on disk: 2221/f182m, 2221/f187n, 2221/f212n, 2221/f405n, 2221/f410m, 2221/f466n

  2026-07-19_postrecat/summary.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• fail
  F405N_o001: 1/48 exposures misaligned vs their visit consensus

  An exposure is misaligned when its offset exceeds 2.0 mas AND is significant against the peak error bars. At m2 this CORRECTS the offsets table and stops the run; the crf frames must be regenerated before cataloging continues.

  checkpoint_m2_F405N_o001_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  Affected: 1/2 detectors — confined to nrcalong, which points at a detector-local defect (distortion reference, a bad filteroffset, or one chip's frames never re-aligned) rather than a whole-frame misalignment. fix_alignment SKIPS a frame that already has a RAOFFSET header, so correcting the table alone leaves stale frames in place; regenerate the working copy from _cal instead of re-applying on top.

  Misaligned by detector

  nrcalong1/24

  nrcblong0/24

  Diagnostic writeupD2 — internal astrometric repeatability · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  visit	detector	dRA (mas)	dDec (mas)	off (mas)	contrast	pairs	window ("")
  1	nrcalong	-1.9	-1.1	2.2	3,876.0	75365	3.0

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  m7: products come from 2 different pipeline tags (unattributed)

  2026-09-02_PR621_6c317d3-dirty (21), 2026-08-27_PR574_3bdf55f-dirty (12). Image and catalog must be deployed from the SAME pipeline run; a mixed-tag set is not releasable as one product. NOTE: the sidecars carry no observation token and this field has several observations, so the mix may span them rather than sitting inside this one.

  catalogs/*m7*.prov.json

  what is affected, and why

  This happens when filters are re-run at different times and only some are regenerated — a partial rerun, or a merge that picked up an older per-filter product. The fix is to re-run the lagging filters at the current tag, not to re-stamp: the tag records which code wrote the numbers.

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  pipeline tag	products
  2026-09-02_PR621_6c317d3-dirty	21
  2026-08-27_PR574_3bdf55f-dirty	12

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  m8: products come from 3 different pipeline tags (unattributed)

  2026-08-27_PR574_3bdf55f-dirty (4), 2026-09-02_PR621_6c317d3-dirty (3), 2026-09-04_PR769_b0e994e (3). Image and catalog must be deployed from the SAME pipeline run; a mixed-tag set is not releasable as one product. NOTE: the sidecars carry no observation token and this field has several observations, so the mix may span them rather than sitting inside this one.

  catalogs/*m8*.prov.json

  what is affected, and why

  This happens when filters are re-run at different times and only some are regenerated — a partial rerun, or a merge that picked up an older per-filter product. The fix is to re-run the lagging filters at the current tag, not to re-stamp: the tag records which code wrote the numbers.

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  pipeline tag	products
  2026-08-27_PR574_3bdf55f-dirty	4
  2026-09-02_PR621_6c317d3-dirty	3
  2026-09-04_PR769_b0e994e	3

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  m7: 33 product(s) stamped with a -dirty tag

  The tree had uncommitted changes, so the tag does not identify the code that ran. Fine for a development run; not for a release.

  catalogs/*m7*.prov.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  m8: 7 product(s) stamped with a -dirty tag

  The tree had uncommitted changes, so the tag does not identify the code that ran. Fine for a development run; not for a release.

  catalogs/*m8*.prov.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  3 different CRDS contexts among the sampled frames: jwst_1253.pmap, jwst_1533.pmap, jwst_1586.pmap

  Frames calibrated against different CRDS contexts do not share one WCS solution — distortion and filteroffset references differ between them. A catalog built from the mixture carries whichever each frame got. (Sampled, so this is a lower bound on the spread.)

  FITS header CRDS_CTX

  what is affected, and why

  Frames from different reduction epochs are co-resident in the filter directory. Distortion and filteroffset references differ between contexts, so positions from the two generations do not share one solution — and an apparent inter-module or inter-visit offset can be entirely this. Re-reduce the older frames, or move them out of the globbed directory.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  filter	CRDS_CTX	frames sampled
  F182M	jwst_1253.pmap	4
  F187N	jwst_1253.pmap	4
  F212N	jwst_1253.pmap	4
  F405N	jwst_1253.pmap	3
  F405N	jwst_1586.pmap	1
  F410M	jwst_1253.pmap	4
  F466N	jwst_1533.pmap	4

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F405N: 1/48 exposures misaligned vs their visit consensus (checkpoint predates the frames)

  An exposure is misaligned when its offset exceeds 2.0 mas AND is significant against the peak error bars. At m2 this CORRECTS the offsets table and stops the run; the crf frames must be regenerated before cataloging continues. NOTE: the reduced frames are NEWER than this checkpoint, so the correction it triggered has probably already been applied — re-run the m2 checkpoint to confirm rather than treating this as current.

  checkpoint_m2_F405N_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  Affected: 1/2 detectors — confined to nrcalong, which points at a detector-local defect (distortion reference, a bad filteroffset, or one chip's frames never re-aligned) rather than a whole-frame misalignment. fix_alignment SKIPS a frame that already has a RAOFFSET header, so correcting the table alone leaves stale frames in place; regenerate the working copy from _cal instead of re-applying on top.

  Misaligned by detector

  nrcalong1/24

  nrcblong0/24

  Diagnostic writeupD2 — internal astrometric repeatability · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  visit	detector	dRA (mas)	dDec (mas)	off (mas)	contrast	pairs	window ("")
  1	nrcalong	-1.9	-1.1	2.2	3,880.0	75736	3.0

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F182M visit 1: worst tile 29.1 mas at cell (0,4) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F182M_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  5/36 cells exceed 15 mas, and every one of them is on the mosaic EDGE — that is usually thin coverage (few exposures, so few pairs per cell) rather than a distortion error. Check the pair counts in the table before treating it as a defect. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.71 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (0,4)	29.1	27.2	10.3	20.0	22616
  (1,0)	18.0	-14.0	11.2	24.0	251233
  (0,0)	16.1	-13.7	8.5	22.3	218664
  (5,2)	15.2	12.7	8.3	26.5	160431
  (2,0)	15.1	-12.0	9.1	25.0	235663

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F182M_o001 visit 1: worst tile 29.1 mas at cell (0,4) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F182M_o001_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  5/36 cells exceed 15 mas, and every one of them is on the mosaic EDGE — that is usually thin coverage (few exposures, so few pairs per cell) rather than a distortion error. Check the pair counts in the table before treating it as a defect. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.71 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (0,4)	29.1	27.2	10.3	20.0	22616
  (1,0)	18.0	-14.0	11.2	24.0	251233
  (0,0)	16.1	-13.7	8.5	22.3	218664
  (5,2)	15.2	12.7	8.3	26.5	160431
  (2,0)	15.1	-12.0	9.1	25.0	235663

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F187N visit 1: worst tile 17.5 mas at cell (1,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F187N_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  1/36 cells exceed 15 mas, and every one of them is on the mosaic EDGE — that is usually thin coverage (few exposures, so few pairs per cell) rather than a distortion error. Check the pair counts in the table before treating it as a defect. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.79 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (1,0)	17.5	-13.2	11.5	79.0	50026

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F187N_o001 visit 1: worst tile 17.5 mas at cell (1,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F187N_o001_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  1/36 cells exceed 15 mas, and every one of them is on the mosaic EDGE — that is usually thin coverage (few exposures, so few pairs per cell) rather than a distortion error. Check the pair counts in the table before treating it as a defect. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.79 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (1,0)	17.5	-13.2	11.5	79.0	50026

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F212N visit 1: worst tile 28.1 mas at cell (1,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F212N_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  29/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.48 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (1,0)	28.1	-22.7	16.7	30.0	54455
  (2,2)	27.6	-26.5	-8.0	24.0	17850
  (5,0)	27.3	-19.5	19.0	24.0	43805
  (5,5)	27.0	25.9	-7.5	28.0	61535
  (1,5)	25.1	22.7	10.9	35.0	60818
  (5,2)	24.7	-21.1	-12.8	31.0	37167
  (0,0)	23.7	12.2	-20.3	30.0	53285
  (0,3)	23.7	19.8	-13.1	37.0	58808
  (2,5)	22.1	16.2	15.0	46.0	41802
  (1,2)	21.7	12.0	18.1	46.0	49381
  (4,0)	21.5	-14.3	16.0	41.0	37736
  (1,1)	21.3	-13.5	16.4	34.0	47809
  (2,0)	21.0	-17.3	12.1	42.0	59136
  (0,5)	20.9	18.3	-10.1	36.0	51401
  (4,5)	19.4	15.8	-11.3	32.0	57099
  (5,1)	19.3	-17.4	8.5	34.0	43341
  (4,4)	19.2	15.0	-12.1	37.0	72690
  (1,4)	19.2	15.9	10.8	33.0	32535
  (0,1)	18.9	-14.2	12.5	34.0	58535
  (0,2)	18.6	-12.0	14.2	33.0	72790
  (2,1)	18.6	-14.5	-11.6	34.0	35285
  (2,3)	17.6	13.5	11.2	25.0	24533
  (3,5)	17.5	15.5	-8.1	30.0	30719
  (4,2)	17.2	-10.0	-14.0	19.0	11000
  (5,4)	16.8	9.7	-13.7	40.0	83967
  (1,3)	16.7	13.8	9.3	31.0	45625
  (3,2)	16.1	-14.3	7.6	17.0	93982
  (3,0)	16.1	-10.2	12.5	38.0	46651
  (4,3)	15.8	-11.0	-11.3	17.0	20190

  Existing figures

  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w.pdf figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w.png figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w_ice.pdf figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w_ice.png figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w_noice.pdf figures
  • CCD_extinction_vectors_f182m-f212n_f212n-f356w_noice.png figures
• warn
  F212N_o001 visit 1: worst tile 28.9 mas at cell (1,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F212N_o001_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  29/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.75 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (1,0)	28.9	-23.3	17.1	29.0	54457
  (2,2)	28.4	-27.5	-7.4	26.0	17850
  (5,5)	27.0	25.9	-7.8	29.0	61537
  (5,0)	26.6	-19.2	18.5	24.0	43805
  (1,5)	25.1	22.6	11.0	35.0	60818
  (0,3)	24.6	20.9	-13.0	37.0	58721
  (0,0)	24.3	12.3	-20.9	28.0	53286
  (5,2)	22.8	-18.6	-13.1	30.0	37167
  (2,5)	22.1	16.2	15.0	46.0	41802
  (0,2)	21.9	15.1	15.8	33.0	72622
  (1,1)	21.5	-14.1	16.2	34.0	47809
  (2,0)	21.3	-17.9	11.6	43.0	59140
  (1,2)	21.3	11.2	18.1	43.0	49464
  (4,0)	21.0	-13.8	15.8	41.0	37736
  (0,5)	20.9	18.3	-10.1	36.0	51401
  (4,5)	19.7	16.1	-11.4	33.0	57094
  (4,4)	19.3	14.9	-12.3	37.0	72691
  (2,1)	19.0	-15.2	-11.4	35.0	35284
  (1,4)	18.9	15.8	10.4	32.0	32533
  (0,1)	18.8	-14.2	12.3	33.0	58535
  (5,1)	18.6	-16.6	8.4	34.0	43341
  (3,5)	17.6	15.4	-8.5	30.0	30721
  (5,4)	16.8	10.0	-13.6	40.0	83972
  (4,2)	16.7	-9.6	-13.7	19.0	11001
  (2,3)	16.6	13.4	9.8	25.0	24532
  (1,3)	16.2	13.7	8.6	32.0	45574
  (3,2)	15.8	-13.6	8.0	17.0	93980
  (3,0)	15.7	-10.2	11.9	38.0	46649
  (4,3)	15.6	-11.4	-10.7	17.0	20190

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F405N visit 1: worst tile 21.4 mas at cell (1,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F405N_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  6/36 cells exceed 15 mas, and every one of them is on the mosaic EDGE — that is usually thin coverage (few exposures, so few pairs per cell) rather than a distortion error. Check the pair counts in the table before treating it as a defect. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.31 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (1,0)	21.4	-17.3	12.6	86.0	53861
  (0,1)	18.0	-10.3	14.7	87.0	53795
  (2,0)	16.8	-14.4	8.6	80.0	56735
  (5,0)	15.3	-14.2	-5.8	47.0	44384
  (0,2)	15.1	-9.2	12.0	69.0	57653
  (4,5)	15.0	13.1	-7.3	80.0	56573

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F405N_o001 visit 1: worst tile 20.9 mas at cell (1,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F405N_o001_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  5/36 cells exceed 15 mas, and every one of them is on the mosaic EDGE — that is usually thin coverage (few exposures, so few pairs per cell) rather than a distortion error. Check the pair counts in the table before treating it as a defect. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.49 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (1,0)	20.9	-16.8	12.5	87.0	54130
  (0,1)	18.0	-10.5	14.6	86.0	53791
  (2,0)	16.8	-14.3	8.9	79.0	56035
  (4,5)	15.2	13.2	-7.4	80.0	56569
  (5,0)	15.0	-14.1	-5.3	47.0	44144

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F410M visit 1: worst tile 23.3 mas at cell (1,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F410M_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  11/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 2.84 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (1,0)	23.3	-18.0	14.7	75.0	81917
  (0,1)	21.4	-10.6	18.6	72.0	73963
  (0,2)	21.4	-12.7	17.2	65.0	76281
  (5,2)	18.0	16.1	8.0	37.0	59034
  (5,0)	17.9	-15.0	9.8	35.0	68441
  (1,5)	17.9	15.0	9.8	67.0	75383
  (0,0)	17.7	-14.7	9.8	61.0	68052
  (2,0)	17.3	-14.8	9.0	75.0	83567
  (1,2)	17.2	8.0	15.2	51.0	70902
  (4,0)	15.8	-12.7	9.5	56.0	73499
  (4,5)	15.8	15.1	-4.8	55.0	80895

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F410M_o001 visit 1: worst tile 22.1 mas at cell (1,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F410M_o001_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  9/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.28 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (1,0)	22.1	-18.3	12.3	71.0	82002
  (5,0)	20.6	-17.5	-10.8	33.0	68567
  (0,2)	20.3	9.6	17.8	59.0	76364
  (0,1)	18.6	-10.2	15.6	62.0	74039
  (1,5)	17.3	15.5	7.8	67.0	75389
  (4,5)	17.1	15.7	-6.8	59.0	80803
  (2,0)	15.8	-14.3	6.7	66.0	83808
  (1,2)	15.1	8.5	12.5	51.0	70914
  (4,0)	15.0	-12.3	8.7	51.0	73586

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F466N visit 1: worst tile 23.0 mas at cell (1,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F466N_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  11/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.11 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (1,0)	23.0	-17.6	14.8	64.0	41760
  (0,2)	21.8	-12.5	17.8	57.0	46542
  (5,0)	19.4	-18.2	-6.5	37.0	33132
  (4,5)	19.1	16.7	-9.1	60.0	41377
  (0,1)	18.4	-10.9	14.9	60.0	44779
  (2,0)	17.2	-14.6	9.3	73.0	45860
  (1,1)	15.3	-11.2	10.5	57.0	37421
  (0,3)	15.3	13.6	-7.0	52.0	38709
  (4,4)	15.3	13.4	-7.3	57.0	45049
  (1,5)	15.2	14.4	5.1	61.0	39392
  (5,5)	15.1	12.2	-9.0	66.0	43267

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  F466N_o001 visit 1: worst tile 23.4 mas at cell (1,0) (> 15 mas)

  36/36 tiles are reported "ok", but that counts tiles whose offset histogram had a coherent PEAK — not tiles within tolerance. The m7 cross-band gate is no significant 2" cell above 15 mas, and this cell exceeds it, so the bulk tie being ~0 does not mean the field is flat.

  checkpoint_m2_F466N_o001_latest.json

  what is affected, and why

  10/36 cells exceed 15 mas. They are not confined to the edge, so this is an interior residual: a distortion or per-detector alignment problem, not a coverage artefact. The bulk tie for this visit is 0.32 mas — a small bulk value cannot cancel a local one.

  Diagnostic writeupD3 — absolute tie to the reference frame · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  cell	off (mas)	dRA	dDec	contrast	pairs
  (1,0)	23.4	-18.4	14.4	65.0	41762
  (0,2)	21.5	-11.7	18.0	58.0	46542
  (0,1)	18.7	-11.3	14.9	60.0	44780
  (4,5)	18.6	15.6	-10.3	62.0	41379
  (5,0)	18.0	-16.8	-6.3	37.0	33133
  (2,0)	17.4	-14.9	9.0	71.0	45856
  (0,3)	15.8	14.4	-6.5	54.0	38786
  (1,5)	15.7	14.3	6.6	62.0	39481
  (1,1)	15.7	-11.8	10.4	58.0	37496
  (5,5)	15.0	12.3	-8.6	62.0	43173

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  photometric certifiers were not computed in the latest paper run

  Saturation continuity and degenerate-pair flatness are therefore UNKNOWN, not passing. The release gate refuses at >= 0.10 mag (stage_release.CONTINUITY_TOL_MAG); the paper additionally states a < 0.05 mag goal for degenerate-pair flatness — the two numbers differ and are reported as they stand.

  2026-07-19_postrecat/summary.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupD8 — colour diagrams · full diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  paper analysis ran against dirty checkout(s): brick-jwst-2221, jwst-gc-pipeline

  The recorded git SHA does not identify the code that produced these numbers.

  2026-07-19_postrecat/provenance.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• warn
  paper validation last ran 62 days ago (2026-07-19)

  It runs on a SLURM dependency after re-cataloging, so a long gap means it has not seen the recent runs. This is a monitor heuristic, not a paper gate.

  2026-07-19_postrecat/summary.json

  what is affected, and why

  Diagnostic writeupfull diagnostic writeup (PDF)

  Existing figures

  • accuracy_audit_vs_virac2.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F115W.png astrometry_diag
  • aggregate_per_detector_F200W.png astrometry_diag
  • f115w_residual_vs_refs.png astrometry_diag
• ok
  4 further paper-validation problem(s) belong to the field's other programme(s), not to 2221

  2026-07-19_postrecat/summary.json
• ok
  F182M: all 192 exposures within 2.0 mas of consensus

  checkpoint_m2_F182M_latest.json
• ok
  F182M_o001: all 192 exposures within 2.0 mas of consensus

  checkpoint_m2_F182M_o001_latest.json
• ok
  F187N: all 192 exposures within 2.0 mas of consensus

  checkpoint_m2_F187N_latest.json
• ok
  F187N_o001: all 192 exposures within 2.0 mas of consensus

  checkpoint_m2_F187N_o001_latest.json
• ok
  F212N: all 192 exposures within 2.0 mas of consensus

  checkpoint_m2_F212N_latest.json
• ok
  F212N_o001: all 192 exposures within 2.0 mas of consensus

  checkpoint_m2_F212N_o001_latest.json
• ok
  F410M: all 48 exposures within 2.0 mas of consensus

  checkpoint_m2_F410M_latest.json
• ok
  F410M_o001: all 48 exposures within 2.0 mas of consensus

  checkpoint_m2_F410M_o001_latest.json
• ok
  F466N: all 48 exposures within 2.0 mas of consensus

  checkpoint_m2_F466N_latest.json
• ok
  F466N_o001: all 48 exposures within 2.0 mas of consensus

  checkpoint_m2_F466N_o001_latest.json
• ok
  m7 present (3 file(s))

  catalogs/
• ok
  m8 present (3 file(s))

  catalogs/
• ok
  8 recent log(s), no error signatures

  logs/