deletions | additions       diff --git a/Challenge Structure.tex b/Challenge Structure.tex  index 23e5d1e..1fb32d4 100644  --- a/Challenge Structure.tex  +++ b/Challenge Structure.tex 
...
\item $P<0.15$  \item $A<0.15$  \end{enumerate}   {\bf [EL: Why the lower bound on $\chi^2$? If Good Team fits extremely accurately, but puts an extra "systematic" error in to account for uncertainties, why penalize? This actually happens with our DRW fits where we sometimes get errors of 0.04 days but we never believe this accuracy and might inflate it to 0.4 days. This should be fine, especially seeing my note below about only counting in $f$ those systems with apparent precision within 5\%.]} 5\%.] \bf I think that the lower bound on \chi^2 is needed because overestimating errors is not good either. If we we think errors are too large we might overlook some valuable system.}  A failure rate of 50\% is something like the borderline of acceptability for LSST, and so can be used to define the robustness threshold. The TDC0 lenses will be selected to span the range of possible time delays, rather than being sampled from the OM10 distribution, and so we therefore expect a higher rate of catastrophic failure at this stage than in TDC1: 50\% is a minimal bar to clear.   {\bf [EL: see my previous remarks about not wanting $f=1$ but rather that $f$ should take the value of the fraction of systems that could legitimately be fit given season coverage. One should penalize $f$ greater than this value. Also, Alireza and I use ratings (gold, silver, brass) to indicate a degree of confidence; this is useful since systems will need spectroscopic followup and we shouldn't waste telescope time on brass systems. So a low $f$ is not automatically bad. One could allow Good Teams to submit one entry for their gold+silver systems, say, and one entry for all their systems, and not penalize the former due to low $f$ as long as $fN>100$ when $N\ge1000$, say, if that's what we think is realistic for followup.]}