Index: doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/list.tex
===================================================================
--- doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/list.tex	(revision 0f9c67bf2e86875a3e1a3837197710b366b81419)
+++ doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/list.tex	(revision 68af77b0fd05ef1cbfcee2f6572c1e697c41ade7)
@@ -706,5 +706,5 @@
 \end{itemize}
 
-In the result analysis, a where list length is a performance-influencing factor, once truly ``large'' lengths have been dismissed, these zones are identified as representing different patterns:
+In the result analysis, where list length is a performance-influencing factor, once ``large'' lengths are dismissed, these zones are identified as representing different patterns:
 \begin{description}
 	\item[size zone ``small''] lists of 4--16 elements
@@ -712,4 +712,5 @@
 \end{description}
 Each zone buckets four specific sizes at which trials are run.
+
 
 \subsubsection{Experiment setup}
@@ -978,5 +979,5 @@
 The preceding result shows the intrusive implementations have better performance to the wrapped lists for small to medium sized lists.
 This analysis covers the experiment position taken in \VRef{s:AddRemovePerformance} for movement, polarity, and accessor.
-\VRef[Figure]{f:ExperimentOperations} shows the experiment operations tested, which results in 12 experiments for comparing intrusive implementations.
+\VRef[Figure]{f:ExperimentOperations} shows the experiment operations tested, which results in 12 experiments (I--XII) for comparing intrusive implementations.
 To preclude hardware interference, only list sizes below 150 are examined to differentiate among the intrusive implementations, 
 The data is selected from the start of \VRef[Figures]{f:Linear-swift}--\subref*{f:Linear-java}, but the start of \VRef[Figures]{f:Random-swift}--\subref*{f:Random-java} is largely the same.
@@ -1036,5 +1037,5 @@
 	X:	&  queue, insert last, I-head / R-head \\
 	XI:	& queue, insert last, iI-list / R-head \\
-	XII:	& queue, insert last, I-head / R-list \\
+	XII:& queue, insert last, I-head / R-list \\
 	\end{tabular}
 \end{tabular}
@@ -1043,21 +1044,22 @@
 \end{figure}
 
-\VRef[Figure]{fig:plot-list-1ord} gives the first-order effects.
-Its first breakdown, Machine--Size-Zone, shows the effects of an insert/remove's physical situation.
-The Intel runs faster than the AMD; the small zone runs faster than the medium zone.
-The size effect is more pronounced on the AMD than it is on the Intel.
-
 \begin{figure}
   \centering
   \includegraphics{plot-list-1ord.pdf}
   \caption{Histogram of operation durations, decomposed by all first-order effects.
-  Each of the three breakdowns divides the entire population of test results into its mutually disjoint constituents.}
+  Each of the three breakdowns divides the entire population of test results into its mutually disjoint constituents. Higher in column is better}
   \label{fig:plot-list-1ord}
 \end{figure}
 
-These facts stated, you will not be chosing between these particular mahines or whether to run at one of these specific size zones.
-The key takeaway from the physical comparison is the context it establishes for interpreting the framework comparison following.
-Both the particulars of a the machine's cache design, and a list length's effect on the program's cache friendliness, affect add/remove speed in the manner illlustrated in this breakdown.
+\VRef[Figure]{fig:plot-list-1ord} gives the first-order effects.
+The first breakdown, architecture/size-zone (left), showing the overall performance of all 12 experiment on the two different hardware architectures.
+The relative experiment duration for each experiment is shown as a bar in each column and the black bar in that column shows the average of all 12 experiments.
+By inspection, Intel runs faster than AMD.
+As well, the small zone (lists of 4--16 elements) runs faster than the medium zone (lists of 50--200 elements).
+The size effect is more pronounced on the AMD with its smaller L3 cache than it is on the Intel.
+(No NUMA effects for these list sizes.)
 Specifically, a 20\% standard deviation exists here, between the means four physical-effect categories.
+The key takeaway for this comparison is the context it establishes for interpreting the following framework comparisons.
+Both the particulars of a the machine's cache design, and a list length's effect on the program's cache friendliness, affect insert/remove speed in the manner illlustrated in this breakdown.
 That is, if you are running on an unknown machine, at a scale above anomaly-prone individuals, and below where major LLC caching effects take over the general intrusive-list advantage, but with an unknown relationship to the sizing of your fickle low-level caches, you are likely to experience an unpredictable speed impact on the order of 20\%.
 
Index: doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/plots/list-1ord.gp
===================================================================
--- doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/plots/list-1ord.gp	(revision 0f9c67bf2e86875a3e1a3837197710b366b81419)
+++ doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/plots/list-1ord.gp	(revision 68af77b0fd05ef1cbfcee2f6572c1e697c41ade7)
@@ -29,5 +29,5 @@
 
 set xrange [-5.5:17.5];
-set xlabel "Machine, Size Zone;                           Operation;                                     Framework;       \nPrevalence                                   Prevalence                                     Prevalence"
+set xlabel "Architecture, Size Zone;                           Operation;                                     Framework;       \nPrevalence                                   Prevalence                                     Prevalence"
 set xtics ( \
    "AMD, sm"    -5, \