Remnant-fits.md

-# Non-evolved remnant fits
+[[_TOC_]]
+
+# Non-evolved nrutils remnant fits
 
 To calculate the non-evolved remnant fits, we call the functions in `lalinference.imrtgr.nrutils`. You can see the wrapper for these functions in [`pesummary.gw.file.nrutils`](https://git.ligo.org/lscsoft/pesummary/-/blob/master/pesummary/gw/file/nrutils.py).
 
@@ -72,9 +74,14 @@ Maximum difference for mf_nonevol: 7.958078640513122e-13
 Maximum difference for e_rad_nonevol: 4.1033842990145786e-13
 ```
 
-# Review comments
+## Related MRs
 
-## David Keitel 2020.03.04
+* !241
+* !242
+
+## Review comments
+
+### David Keitel 2020.03.04
 
 *  inspected version: ed801a91
 *  [nrutils wrappers](https://git.ligo.org/lscsoft/pesummary/-/blob/master/pesummary/gw/file/nrutils.py):
@@ -100,7 +107,7 @@ However, continuing to read in [conversions.py](https://git.ligo.org/lscsoft/pes
 * [ ] Similar for the spin evolution, I see that various functions already have a `evolved=False` placeholder switch, but how will that actually be decided? Will `generate_all_posterior_samples` get an extra switch argument (or as part of `self`), or will the evolved samples be generated in a step prior to calling this function and it will check for their presence, then use them if available?
     > I was thinking of the latter: `will the evolved samples be generated in a step prior to calling this function and it will check for their presence, then use them if available?`. I think this is the cleanest way of solving this problem.
 
-## Nathan Johnson-McDaniel 2020.03.05
+### Nathan Johnson-McDaniel 2020.03.05
 
 Initial comments
 
@@ -120,7 +127,7 @@ Initial comments
 - [x] This is not really part of this review, but in [this code](https://git.ligo.org/lscsoft/pesummary/-/blob/review_comments/pesummary/gw/file/conversions.py#L1190) using a calculation like [here](https://git.ligo.org/lscsoft/pesummary/-/blob/review_comments/pesummary/gw/file/nrutils.py#L215) instead of `arccos` would presumably be faster, though perhaps less clean to read (and it's surely not a big performance issue). I would also recommend adding a comment about why things called `spin_magnitudes` in the code can be negative.
     > I have kept `arccos` only because I think it is cleaner for readability and I do not think this will affect the performance of the code that much :) I have also changed `a_1` to be `spin_1z` which circumvents the need to explain why things called `spin_magnitudes` can be negative.
 
-## Nathan Johnson-McDaniel 2020.03.08
+### Nathan Johnson-McDaniel 2020.03.08
 
 Comments on the revised version
 
@@ -148,7 +155,7 @@ Comments on the revised version
 * Minor:
 - [ ] There should be a space between ergs and s^{-1} [here](https://git.ligo.org/lscsoft/pesummary/-/blob/review_comments/pesummary/gw/plots/latex_labels.py#L84). Additionally, things like "peak," "nonevol," "ergs," and "s" should all be set in Roman. 
 
-## David Keitel 2020.03.04
+### David Keitel 2020.03.04
 *  From Nathan:
 > The _final_from_initial() function might also include IMRPhenomD as an option, interfacing with the Husa et al. fits used in this waveform.
 
@@ -159,7 +166,13 @@ Comments on the revised version
 * [x]  Also I'm somewhat confused now when/where the explicit fit arguments are passed, and when not. From the main generate_all_posterior_samples, it calls e.g. _final_spin_of_merger, which then calls final_spin_of_merger, which then has defaults method="NR", approximant="SEOBNRv4", NRfit="average". So it currently always uses those defaults, is that right? Any other options would be a future MR?  
 --> answer from Charlie: "Yes so it currently uses those defaults. And yes, for interests of time, I will save other options for a future MR."
 
+
+
+# Spin evolution for nrutils fits
+
+
 ## Related MRs
 
-* !241
-* !242
+* !245
+
\ No newline at end of file
+## Review comments
\ No newline at end of file