As confirmed with the pressure data, the instrument slid to approx. 100m at deployment (annotation ID 148). Excluding this dataset from the final statistics.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/4/19

Salinity and density values are 0.03 psu and 0.02 kg m-3 higher for the recovered_inst dataset compared to the telemetered dataset. Conductivity values are also slightly higher for the recovered_inst dataset (0.003 S m-1). Excluding data from this deployment for statistics as it's unclear which dataset is correct. This should be investigated and the incorrect dataset should be fixed or annotated to indicate which dataset is correct.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/4/19

There is a data gap in the recovered_inst data stream from 2017-10-28T05:15:01 to 2017-11-05T13:00:01, however these data are available in the recovered_host data stream. The recovered_inst data should be filled in. See Redmine ticket 13752.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/4/19

The mooring was deployed 9 - 10 km from the location of the previous 4 deployments of this mooring. If this location is correct, the platform should be annotated to inform the users as to why the deployment location changed.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/4/19

The mooring was deployed 9 - 10 km from the location of the previous 4 deployments of this mooring. If this location is correct, the platform should be annotated to inform the users as to why the deployment location changed.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/4/19

recovered_inst data are not available for download from uFrame. There is an entry in the ingest csv indicating that the raw data file is available. This should be investigated and the recovered_inst data should be made available for download (or the system should have an annotation indicating why the recovered_inst data are not available).

By Lori Garzio, on 1/4/19

Modify annotation ID 130 to indicate the time the mooring fell. According to the pressure data from the CTDMO, the mooring began to fall around 5/23/2016. Excluding data from final statistics.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Conductivity (and salinity and density) dropped suddenly for several hours, then returned to reasonable values. Excluding data from final statistics.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Conductivity (and salinity and density) dropped suddenly for approx. 24 hours, then returned to reasonable values. Excluding data from final statistics.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Conductivity dropped substantially (this affects salinity and density) then gradually returned to resemble the data that were recorded before the issue. Temperature and pressure don't appear to be affected. Excluding data from final statistics. Data should be annotated to alert users of the issue.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Conductivity dropped substantially for several weeks (this affects salinity and density). Temperature and pressure don't appear to be affected. Excluding data from final statistics. Data should be annotated to alert users of the issue.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Excluding data from the beginning of deployment 2 from the final statistics as the mooring was recovered and re-deployed (annotation ID 580)

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Data are unreasonable. According to asset management, the instrument was deployed at 150m but pressure values are recorded around 280 dbar. Conductivity, salinity, and density are also unreasonable. Temperature in degrees Celsius appear to be reasonable for a CTD deployed at 280 dbar. The L0 data products (conductivity, pressure and temperature in counts) are in a similar range to those from other deployments.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/2/19

Deployments 4 and 5 don't have deployment depths defined in asset management.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Deployments 4 and 5 don't have deployment depths defined in asset management.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Deployments 4 and 5 don't have deployment depths defined in asset management.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

The mooring was deployed 9 - 10 km from the location of the previous 4 deployments of this mooring. If this location is correct, the platform should be annotated to inform the users as to why the deployment location changed.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/2/19

Deployments 2, 3, 4: deployment depths from asset management are substantially different than the pressure recorded by the instrument. If the deployment depths in asset management are correct, the data should be annotated to indicate why the pressure values are so different from the depth at which the instrument was deployed.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/2/19

Salinity for deployment 2 appears to be shifted high compared to other deployments. The average salinity for deployment 2 is 34.94 while the average salinity for deployments 1, 3, 4 is 34.93. This pattern isn't observed in surrounding CTDMOs.

By Lori Garzio, on 12/21/18

Practical salinity and density dropped briefly - excluding from final statistics.

By Lori Garzio, on 12/21/18