Restructuring / remove redundancies

[tilsche]

Problem statement

Both the structure and redundancies have been reported as suboptimal.

Solution

We have decided to address redundancies during restructuring. It is not yet clear exactly how we are going to restructure. Eric and Brandon are working on checking out the current structure and current redundancies to move forward. Simplification is a major goal of the restructuring.

Also take into account the previous report of #79

I feel that particular aspect, e.g. "Level one measurement at least once per second" should appear not more than three times, e.g., in a summary text, a detailed text and a summary table. Right now it is mentioned in 1. (introduction Level 1), 2.2.1 (Terminology), 2.2.2, Table 2.1, 2.4.3 (Level 1) and 5 (Definitions). I think the difficulty is that document has orthogonal structures of at least aspects and levels.

[tilsche]

From today's discussion

• Consider the concise summary/tutorial by Donato Raimondi (See also #115) for the restructuring
• Also check for consistency issues (next to the redundancy)
• See also, reference checklist: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1muf50ytLAZ3ZVt5ZNckEc_CCwlEZ9mTi4KjmbeMgj54/edit?usp=sharing
• For the next step: look at little consistency/reference problems that came up in the analysis and split of smaller incremental tasks

[BranTran]

@tilsche For feedback on these comments before continuing with updates Comments on references

• [ ] In the checklist, all three quality level summaries point to the Section 3.3 for details on measurements, though Section 3.3.3 - 3.3.5 are specific to each of the levels, should I update the references?
• [ ] In Section 6 Definitions: we define things such as core phase, power-averaged measurements, sampling and power readings. We have dedicated subsections within the document for more details, should we add those in?

Comments on consistency/redundancy

• [x] In the middle of the document we switch from consistently using Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 to using the shorthand L1, L2, and L3. Should we update this small section so we consistently write out Level?
• [ ] For L1 Submissions there appear to be two conflicting power measurement minimums. There is the "at least 40kW for the entire system" but then "largest of: 1) a minimum of 2kW of power". It is noted that the 40kW value is not present everywhere compared as opposed to the 2kW number. Should we remove mentioning the 40kW number?
• [ ] In the checklist, there is a summary of power measurements "Included Subsystems" that is redundant to the Level 1 and Level 2 summaries. Should this just be a reference instead?
  • These bullet points come up again in Section 3.5