what figures and tables are we ACTUALLY going to eliminate from our assessment reports?

[iantaylor-NOAA]

The PFMC Groundfish Terms of Reference for 2023-2024 (page 61), includes an Appendix I (screenshot below) which lists which figures and tables can be eliminated from the assessment reports.

This appendix is unchanged from the 2021-2022 version, but most reports included everything in the "eliminate" column anyway.
If we can decide as a group what we're going to include and eliminate that could reduce reviewers or council staff questions about our choices.

I can work on making it easy to include things like likelihood profile figures and {sdmTMB} diagnostic plots in the HTML view of the r4ss figures (see r4ss/r4ss#544), but that task will be easier if we have some consensus on whether we're following the guidance in this appendix or not.

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

My first response: Provided we already include the things in the keep column, I would very much prefer to eliminate anything we can. Pretty hard for a reviewer to argue against the TOR.

After looking at what is eliminated in Appendix 1: There are some odd things suggested to be eliminated e.g. profile likelihoods. There also are things we should keep AND eliminate. Clearly this table needs work.

My suggestion is, of those marked as eliminate

1. remove anything that is marked eliminate, or says keep and eliminate. The only exception is to keep the items in the projection and decision table section (or at least discuss whether their inclusion in the executive summary is sufficient - I personally think they should be in main report).

Also, I dont understand what an electronic index is, given our reports are electronic, is it an appendix?

[iantaylor-NOAA]

The origin of that table in Appendix I was this spreadsheet that @chantelwetzel-noaa created and many of us contributed to. It includes columns for "Reasoning" and "Additional thoughts" that provide useful info:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NSFVKXfOLz0xQ_q7HsvxUmWY0778Os8O1kOwqf4kCAw/edit#gid=0.
It appears that we never reached consensus on some items but the SSC adopted the unrefined table anyway.

Electronic index isn't well defined. For lingcod we created this github pages site: https://pfmc-assessments.github.io/lingcod/, which was useful for the review, but it never got referenced in the document.