energetics and angular momentum profile, thus affecting the spin parameter. For the Peebles measure ([Equation \[eqn:peebles\]]{}), the change in energy is outweighed by the change in angular momentum but the two effects counteract each other. For the Bullock spin parameter ([Equation \[eqn:bullock\]]{}), only angular momentum has an affect on the spins. So we find that the Bullock spin of sub[haloes]{} is more sensitive to the softening, as shown in [Table \[tab:codes\]]{}.

[Table \[tab:codes\]]{} also shows that, contrary to [@onions_2013], the three halo finding methods do not recover consistent spin parameters. While they all agree on the halo spins, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahf</span>]{} recovers significantly larger spins on average for the subhalo population than either [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">subfind</span>]{} or [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hbt</span>]{} which are consistent with each other. The subhalo spins for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahf</span>]{} are broadly consistent with the field population, particularly for larger values of the gravitational softening. This is also discrepant with [@onions_2013] who found lower spin parameter values for their sub[haloes]{}. This result is due to the failure of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahf</span>]{} to resolve a significant fraction of sub[haloes]{}within the simulations. The subhalo numbers given in [Table \[tab:haloes\]]{} indicate that around $36\%$ of the sub[haloes]{} containing 300 or more particles in BoxA are 