Review.md

@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ Remember that `alpha=1.0` posteriors should look bad for these events - they wou
 | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ |
 | GW191204_171526 | Krishnendu | [link](O3b-Results/GW191204_171526) |  |<br> I think we already discussed this in the past about the differences in the $`A_0`$ cases from Bilby LI runs [like this](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/wikis/uploads/793638864a52c6269d894eb00cc30882/GW191204_171526_0.png). Could you please add a note about our final understanding? I believe adding one note on this will be useful as we have similar cases for multiple events and we discussed this feature in detail. <br><br> Another thing is the slight difference in the [Mc estimate](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~haris.k/bilby_pipe/liv/live_review/summarypages/o3b/GW191204_171526/0p0/plots/combined_1d_posterior_chirp_mass.png), I guess we need to note down about this feature also as part of signing off the results.   |
 | GW191222A | Krishnendu | [link](O3b-Results/GW191222A) |  | <br> Shall we check if we are using the same distance priors for both LI and Bilby runs?  |
-| GW200219A | Krishnendu | [link](O3b-Results/GW200219A) |  | <br> $`\chi_{eff}`$ posterior is different, do we understand this?  |
+| GW200219A | Krishnendu | [link](O3b-Results/GW200219A) |  | <br> $`\chi_{eff}`$ posterior is different, do we understand this?  **TB**: I don't think I see what is wrong with the posterior? The one that looks different is reweighted bilby, (no reweighted lal is plotted). The raw samples posteriors look pretty similar.|
 | GW200202A | Krishnendu | [link](O3b-Results/GW200202A) |  | <br> $`\chi_{eff}`$ posterior is different, do we understand this? <br> <br> I think it will be also good to compare the prior distributions used for LI and Bilby runs to see these differences are caused by the difference in prior. |
 | S191109a | Naresh | [link](O3b-Results/S191109a) |  |  |
 | S191129a | Naresh | [link](O3b-Results/S191129a) |  |  |