fine-tuned yield comparison

For the W- yield, I see some small (though overall yield is small so they aren't vanishingly so) differences between the yield from Justin's processed data and my own (using identical methods, with slight changes in logic that shouldn't cause any new events to fail).  The frustration is that the mismatches for + and - do not occur in the same files, which makes it unlikely that entire runs files failed or had otherwise anomalous behavior.  (The next guess is that not all the files from each run are present, which would lead to a trend toward lower numbers, which would be matched by a reduced integrated luminosity)

R10079006 (5)   j=1     r=0
R10079071 (17)  j=1     r=0
R10083047 (55)  j=1     r=0
R10087036 (84)  j=1     r=0
R10087062 (89)  j=1     r=0
R10078093 (137) j=1     r=0
R10079045 (148) j=1     r=0
R10079046 (149) j=1     r=0
R10082076 (190) j=1     r=0
R10087033 (238) j=1     r=0
R10087052 (241) j=1     r=0
R10087057 (244) j=2     r=0
R10090079 (295) j=1     r=0
R10094089 (316) j=1     r=0
R10095047 (321) j=1     r=0
R10098040 (335) j=1     r=0
R10102094 (360) j=1     r=2
R10092028 (368) j=1     r=0
R10094006 (390) j=1     r=0
R10094073 (399) j=2     r=1
R10097028 (445) j=2     r=1
R10099076 (474) j=1     r=0
R10100169 (503) j=0     r=1
R10102066 (554) j=1     r=0
R10102107 (562) j=0     r=1
R10102112 (564) j=1     r=0
events missing: 24.  new events found: 3
 
For W+ the situation is similar:
R10079007 (6)   j=2     r=1
R10079078 (19)  j=1     r=0
R10080042 (24)  j=1     r=0
R10083041 (53)  j=1     r=0
R10085031 (64)  j=1     r=0
R10085115 (69)  j=3     r=2
R10085131 (70)  j=1     r=0
R10087001 (78)  j=1     r=0
R10087023 (81)  j=1     r=0
R10090081 (129) j=1     r=0
R10090089 (130) j=1     r=0
R10079016 (141) j=3     r=2
R10079042 (147) j=1     r=0
R10079045 (148) j=1     r=0
R10079062 (153) j=1     r=0
R10079080 (157) j=1     r=0
R10079129 (159) j=1     r=0
R10080020 (163) j=2     r=0
R10080022 (164) j=2     r=1
R10080078 (167) j=2     r=1
R10080081 (169) j=1     r=0
R10081117 (179) j=1     r=0
R10083034 (199) j=3     r=2
R10085104 (216) j=1     r=0
R10085136 (224) j=2     r=0
R10085140 (225) j=1     r=2
R10087032 (237) j=2     r=1
R10087057 (244) j=1     r=0
R10090005 (283) j=1     r=0
R10090013 (285) j=2     r=1
R10090072 (292) j=1     r=0
R10090074 (293) j=2     r=1
R10092009 (301) j=1     r=0
R10092024 (306) j=1     r=0
R10095047 (321) j=3     r=2
R10095120 (322) j=3     r=2
R10096008 (324) j=4     r=3
R10098040 (335) j=4     r=1
R10100179 (347) j=3     r=4
R10101086 (354) j=6     r=5
R10102055 (359) j=1     r=0
R10092046 (378) j=2     r=1
R10094007 (391) j=2     r=1
R10094019 (393) j=2     r=3
R10094063 (396) j=1     r=2
R10094071 (398) j=2     r=0
R10094098 (406) j=7     r=8
R10095039 (413) j=2     r=0
R10095040 (414) j=3     r=1
 

 This is resolved by noting that the filelists seem to be different overall.  In particular, my integrated luminosity comes out low by the same factor that my yield is low.  Correcting for this,

Final Yield with error bars:

-1.0<eta<-0.5:  19.33   +-6.093  raw:26.00      sim:19.55

-0.5<eta<0.0:   27.81   +-8.197  raw:40.00      sim:23.54

0.0<eta<0.5:    14.93   +-6.228  raw:28.00      sim:22.79

0.5<eta<1.0:    24.97   +-7.866  raw:34.00      sim:21.41

Note that the simulated yields, scaled to the appropriately adjusted luminosity are well within the error bars of the final yields.