Tamas Vami

> I'll check now how things look like for biasing factor of 1 Ohh so with biasing factor of 1 the ecalPN takes longer than 6 hours to run, so...

> @tvami did this move along lately? were you able to run some tests outside of the CI action? Not really, after I'm done with the DR stuff I'll come...

[PN_pn_gamma_int_z.pdf](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/20742813/PN_pn_gamma_int_z.pdf) [PN_pn_interaction_material.pdf](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/20742815/PN_pn_interaction_material.pdf) [PN_pn_vertex_volume.pdf](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/20742816/PN_pn_vertex_volume.pdf) I conclude that we are good with the 550 as is. Btw, the 1100 still doesn't trigger the warning, but it clearly biases the z distribution

@tomeichlersmith I agree with that sentiment, but "old_ecal" is in the software: https://github.com/LDMX-Software/ldmx-sw/blob/8f4cc8a0416855eb7647dd5ad79b615649a1972c/SimCore/src/SimCore/DetectorConstruction.cxx#L67-L68 etc it just didnt have the python config to use it, so I thought the consistent behavior...

> Do we know why the hcal validation test is failing? i'm not sure i understand the plots to boot (in gold), especially the TS simhit ones. the test is...

changes in the hcal are unrelated, I see a big list of KS failing in https://github.com/LDMX-Software/ldmx-sw/actions/runs/19351298324/job/55364065010?pr=1874 and that PR really doenst change anything in the DQM plots

So funny HCAL passed all good now https://github.com/LDMX-Software/ldmx-sw/actions/runs/19352192552/job/55366685464?pr=1869

Retesting with new golds

Maybe this is a duplicate of this old issue: https://github.com/LDMX-Software/ldmx-sw/issues/1096 ?

Talking with @erik-wallin we agreed that this is similar, but not exactly the same