Back to figure desk

Paper 1 editorial audit — 2026-10-01

Figure layout and display revision

Section 3.4 motivation and Section 4 data decision

Section 2–3 simplification and wing-mask revision

Figure 1(c) assignment display correction

Active-canvas cleanup — user-directed follow-up

Section 2–3 revision — user-directed follow-up

Structure and figure review — 15:15 UTC snapshot

Structural findings

Recommended manuscript and figure placement

Proposed location Purpose and figure Assets / action
1. Introduction Question, contribution, testable endpoints No results gallery; colour dependence itself is not the novelty.
2. Data and evaluation M1: coverage, star roles/folds, colour/magnitude coverage F1 + new sample/fold panel. Table 1: five exposures, epochs and per-stage recipe pins.
3.1 Method overview M2: end-to-end flow New F5; add explicit TESS input and separate held-out scoring branch.
3.2 Reference scene M3: resolved scene, removed segments, retained neighbours F3 + common-coordinate segmentation zoom; F2 bandpasses and full decomposition in appendices.
3.3 Preliminary image Bootstrap and image-level background Compact text; final harmonic F6 and blank-region validation in Appendix A.
3.4 Joint calibration M4: spatial response example and rendering Corrected F5 inset + small final F14 profile panel; full mosaic/gauges in Appendix B.
3.5 Per-band subtraction Remapping, response-to-kernel conversion and scale F20 basis/reconstruction in Appendix B; no performance claims here.
4.1 Chromatic pixel response M5: empirical residual stacks + displacement trend Selected F10/F15 + compact held-out F11 data/model/residual examples; full F12 fields in Appendix B.
4.2 Astrometric validation M6: held-out vector residuals + radial-error distribution Rebuild F9; common stars/masks, bias and scatter separately.
4.3 Photometric consistency M7: held-out colour/magnitude trends + spatial residuals Rebuild F17; F7 stays development history, not a duplicate main figure.
4.4 De-crowding performance M8: image comparison + population residual score F18 + selected F16 metrics/stamps; separate full-chain and kernel-only effects. Table 2: all five FFIs.
4.5 Extraction, conditional M9: target retained/subtracted + flux/uncertainty checks Merge F19/F21 only with real independent targets; otherwise future work.
5. Discussion; 6. Conclusions Limits, interpretation, reproducibility, supported findings G6 detail in Appendix B; failures remain explicit in the discussion.

Individual main-figure asset audit

Working ID Visual/scientific verdict Required action / destination
F1 Clear overview; the 986-skycell grid shows mapping, not measured valid coverage. Verify final mapping/count; add usable coverage and roles/folds; M1.
F2 Readable curves; a synthesized response curve does not establish accurate synthetic fluxes. State normalization, photon/energy and zero-point conventions; exact weights; Appendix C with spectral residuals.
F3 Good accounting concept; whole-skycell view cannot establish neighbour preservation. Black conflates low/invalid pixels. Adopted-recipe segmentation zoom; distinguish invalid pixels; M3, full plate appendix.
F4 Labelled nominal-grid demonstration; sharper fine pixels are not a measured accuracy gain. Illustration or fixed-WCS sampling experiment; Appendix A.
F5 workflow New layout is readable; TESS input is implicit, validation only a footnote, refit/extraction conflated. Explicit TESS/Gaia inputs and scoring branch; distinguish optional extraction; M2. Old panoramic F5 is too small at print width.
F5 rendering Corrects the old sixteen-sample diagram; symbols not all defined in caption. Define coordinates, grid centre, stored response and normalization; distinguish spatial-node from pixel-grid interpolation; M4. Never reuse old f05inset.png.
F6 Signed difference is useful; nearly identical cleaned full frames add little; legacy background recipe. Harmonic output, mask, local blank-region residuals and validation; Appendix A.
F7 Spatial maps flatten but A3 colour trend remains strong. Jointly clipped sample; separate zero points. No blanket photometric-gain or absolute-calibration claim. Merge concept into held-out F17; archive this comparison.
F8 Synthetic reconstruction, not observed performance. Bottom text is cramped; displayed F4 non-core RMS exceeds F1 here. Not evidence of F4 superiority. Redesign controlled experiment/layout; Appendix A.
F9 Fitted-minus-production WCS measures solution change, not accuracy; component scales differ. Held-out residual maps/CDF for M6; correction map only supporting context, with vector key.
F10 / F10F2 Strong empirical-image layout: blue/red/difference, baseline/adopted, shuffle null. Dense lower mosaics; old #14 called adopted inside figure. Final A3 heldouts, matched magnitude/crowding/phase, counts and uncertainty; selected stacks + F15 trend for M5, replication appendix.
F11, missing current evidence Needed to show actual observed/model/residual pixels, not only summaries. Preselected isolated/crowded and red/blue cases; same scale, masks, coordinates and IDs; compact M5 subset.
F12 Useful spatial response, but smooth model fields can be mistaken for independent empirical estimates. Model-only labels, calibrated colour/radius domain, empirical checks; A3 rebuild in Appendix B.
F13, optional No active slot; model selection already has supporting diagnostics. Do not add a redundant main plate; held-out ablation table/plot in Appendix B.
F14 / F14b Tiled-coordinate axes obscure detector location; response units unspecified. The 72-stamp initial/final grid is too dense. Small spatially located final examples/profiles with shared scale/support for M4; full node grid appendix; remove run-name titles.
F15 / F15F2 Good radial/tangential null comparison; nine panels, role split and secondary axes dilute it. Baseline/corrected ranges differ. Compact M5 trend; label zoomed range or add shared-scale context; role/null/replication appendix.
F16a / F16b Stacks support the metrics; score plot has overlapping long titles, method IDs and overplotted points. Dry-run evidence. Paired summaries, uncertainty/counts, common masks/noise, readable labels and matching stamps; M8.
F17 / F17pre Older provisional held-out evidence exists, but not for final recipe; twelve panels and aperture decomposition overload it. Final common-fold trends/map in M7; aperture decomposition appendix. Train zero points off test data or scope score explicitly to zero-point-removed consistency.
F18 Honest fixed region/shared signed scale; retained-star saturation dominates, masks are busy, differences hard to see. Context panel, retained-star markers, predetermined smaller zooms and paired differences; saturation/valid-pixel fractions; M8. No favourable-residual selection.
F19, missing Target retention is distinct from a generic final-image comparison. IDs, neighbours, unchanged controls and segment accounting; conditional M9.
F20 Clear P-versus-K distinction. One node and ±4-pixel view cannot establish full-support ringing/reconstruction. Explicit colour-bar units/normalization, full-support checks and reconstruction residuals at centre/edge; Appendix B.
F21, missing No current product establishes extraction recovery/uncertainty calibration. Real independent targets and scoped injection/recovery or repeats; conditional M9; no temporal-precision claim.
G6 Width failure is clear; flux medians hide tails; connecting RMS and maximum implies a continuous axis. Separate categorical markers, tail/quantile checks and parameter maps; repeat final recipe; Appendix B plus limitations.

Historical supporting figures — disposition

Assets Finding / action
fA_f1, fA_f4 Same region/scale, but WCS/recipe differ; prominent vertical seam. Matched experiment needed; Appendix A/history.
fS_lcurve Important generalization warning; five thin panels and dense legend. Rebuild final-recipe curves in 2 × 3 layout; Appendix B. Old curves do not set new stopping point.
fA1 Model selection, optical-axis scan and covariance answer three questions; tiny annotations. Split/trim; selection set is not a final test set.
fA2 Useful ablation/checkpoint drift, but older model called adopted. Final matched held-out ablation; separate convergence panel.
fA3 Relevant gauge/normalization sensitivity; too many tests. Split normalization from gauge/loss; show underlying residual images.
fB4 Readable A3 development comparison, warm-started and in-sample. Historical rationale, not unbiased confirmation.
fB5 Eleven-FFI development breadth is not the five-FFI adopted dataset; eight metrics are dense. Do not substitute for final Table 2.
fB6 Heterogeneous coefficient units, colours-only detector key, little physical interpretation. Parameter table with uncertainty/induced response, not main text.
fB7 Spatial width discrepancy remains visible: valuable negative evidence. Rebuild with final recipe, counts and residual stamps; discuss persistent failure.
old f20, fG6 Too many tiny kernel/refit panels. Compact new plates are better starting points; full grids remain diagnostics.
fS_bandpass Useful spectral-type/colour residuals; crowded legend and extrapolated tails. Identify training/independent spectra and supported domain; Appendix C.
fS_response Eight panels mix image residuals and catalog photometry. Split by question; response attribution remains a hypothesis without controlled evidence.
fS_weights Lower score coexists with aperture/colour discrepancy. Paired controls, uncertainty definitions and failure discussion; no blanket gain.

Visual evidence behind the main cautions

Development spatial and colour trends

Development real-image comparison

Development refit checks

Current provenance findings

Navigation and audit checks

Prioritized completion sequence

Version control and authority

Corrections applied

New figure exports

Remaining figure gates

Submission acceptance checks

Checks completed for the previous figure checkpoint

Rebuild and preview