In my current DPDD draft I have changed DPDD to be consistent with SRD on the 10,000 per visit. I do agree that there is some confusion as to whether the 10,000 is our cap of all alerts, or if it's the number of real alerts and we are going to get a bunch of bogus ones on top.

I believe I have made the required changes in DPDD but it seems like this ticket also wants to make changes to LDM-151 and OSS.

Should I file a new ticket (probably LIT one) for the OSS change and assign to Zeljko Ivezic? Should I file an LDM-151 ticket to cover that and assign to Mario Juric?

Should I close this ticket or am I leaving it open and reassigning to Mario Juric?

Andrew Connolly were there any changes you wanted to be made to OSS or were you explaining the interpretation of the relevant OSS requirements, without implying that changes were needed?

Mario Juric I think there is an implication that LDM-151 needs to be edited in response to this ticket. I am leaving the ticket open and assigned to you. If you prefer, I can create a new ticket focused on LDM-151.

I updated LDM-151 draft to use the 10M/night number for the number of expected alerts (used to be 2M), as well as changed the wording of the 10k number (https://github.com/lsst/LDM-151/commit/8950d85aaa64e68b284795155e15526fd9ef2b92) and the 50% false positives (https://github.com/lsst/LDM-151/commit/5f26caf48559efcb2a71cb6ac6d9153ed7aa4fb8). With the changes Tim Jenness made to the DPDD, I'd consider this ticket closed.

There's a broader (and serious) issue of defining the policy as to how we handle fields with >10,000 real alerts (or, more accurately, fields where processing time exceeded the maximum per-string runtime needed to maintain throughput). Eric Bellm has this issue on his radar. This will also comprehensively deal with any residual ambiguities related to this ticket.

The issue of how to handle fields with > 10K real alerts has triggered a separate ticket DM-15654