star position. Although a small offset[^1] is preferred for both models, these values are within one pixel of the reconstructed maps (02 per pixel) and within 2 $\sigma$ of the pointing accuracy ($\sigma\sim$ 013), therefore not significant. The final best-fit parameters and the residual maps are also given in Table \[tab2\_mcmc\] and Figure \[mcmc\_model\]. Overall, the best-fit parameters agree with the ones derived from the visibilities method within the uncertainties, except for the total fluxes of the ring and the point source where the derived flux using the imaging approach is consistently larger. We also note that the estimated uncertainties are also smaller using the image plane approach. This is because the MCMC uncertainty depends strongly on the weightings of the data. The noise within the beam is highly correlated, and the image deconvolution (the “CLEAN” procedure) treats noise non-linearly, both resulting in smaller uncertainties for the MCMC image fitting that might not be statistically robust. A factor equivalent to the square root of the beam size in pixels is included to mitigate the correlated noise, but this is only an approximation as it assumes a Gaussian beam whereas the dirty beam has some low level, non-Gaussian structure that this 