Oh, and FYI, the big offset is "new", as in it was much smaller (almost zero, in fact) in the previous run:
https://lsst.ncsa.illinois.edu/~lauren/HSC_RC2/w_2021_46/vsGen3/plots/HSC-G/tract-9697/visit-34384/compareVisit-v34384-diff_base_CircularApertureFlux_12_0-psfMagHist.png

Bad news and good news.

I did a comparison between the fgcm outputs for the standard stars on gen2/gen3 on w_2022_04 and it looks like complete garbage:

But I also did the same comparison between the standard stars on gen3 w_2021_50 and gen3 w_2022_04 and they look just fine:

So whatever has gone terribly wrong seems to have gone wrong on the gen2 side. I do not think it is worth keeping gen2 around to investigate what has gone wrong on that end. (Hopefully Lauren MacArthur agrees.). However, it is vital that we monitor the statistics from run to run in gen3 in case there is some transient issue that just happened to hit in gen2. On the other hand, I think it's more likely that I inadvertently broke something on the gen2 side (not that there's any smoking gun, it's just that debugging gen2 does not seem like the best use of time.)

Lauren MacArthur agrees

I guess this is reviewed then?

I agree again!  Thanks, Eli.  I will update the confluence page to note our collective assessment.