Juan Rojo

yes @goord @Cmurilochem Slack has been a mess in the last few weeks but it is sorted out now, back to our Pro plan so all communication can proceed via...

Thanks for checking @enocera I agree with your analysis. And yes, let's remove from the repo all useless and obsolete files, to avoid further confusion

I think so, or even better just remove the positivity dataset in question from the runcard

Thanks @RoyStegeman for the suggestion. So yes, we add an empty list for positivity observables, this is the neat way to go

[PDFs-nnpdf40-vs-newbase-vs-nnpdf41prel-errors.pdf](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/22562187/PDFs-nnpdf40-vs-newbase-vs-nnpdf41prel-errors.pdf) When adding new experiments, one of the things we want to look is the change in the relative uncertainties: a very constraining element will lead to a large variation...

Thanks @enocera this is perfect. Since now we have a baseline, we can start adding these various datasets, taking into account your caveats above. I think @jekoorn and @kamillaurent can...

Thanks @enocera this is most useful. Sounds like a great plan to me. We should also agree on a timescale to avoid that these things take too long - maybe...

@jekoorn @kamillaurent let me know if anything is unclear, happy to discuss with you about the implementation process in the next days

Concerning the ATLAS 5 TeV and 13 TeV low-PU cross-sections: despite what Eram said in morimondo, indeed it is still not in in HepData. I will write to him how...

Well, I think it is still good that two people can carry out independent runs, maybe at low stats, and check that their results agree within MC uncertainties. Then yes,...