ionic stages reported [@summersRAL]. More broadly, we have applied a similar $2-\sigma$ analysis to [*all*]{} ions in that report, at all temperatures and densities, and find the same agreement (20-26% confidence level).

Lastly, it is of interest to investigate how our final suppression factor in Eq. \[eqsuppression2\] compares to our original, motivating, formulation of Eq. \[eqsuppression2\] for , shown in Fig. \[figcivnew\].

![\[figcivnew\] A comparison between the final suppression factor of Eq. \[eqsuppression2\] (solid line), corresponding to a pseudo-Gaussian profile with activation density $x_a=0.8314$ ($q_0=40.284$) and width $w=5.64548$, the @summersRAL data points (solid diamonds), and the original formulation of Eq. \[eqsuppression\] (dashed line), corresponding to a pseudo-Voigt profile with activation density $x_a=0.608$, width $w=4.696$, and mixture coefficient $\mu=0.372$. The temperature $T=1\times10^{5}$ K is the same as in Fig. \[fig1\]. ](Fig4.eps){width="\textwidth"}

There is generally good qualitative agreement. However, it is seen that the original formulation, based on the @badnell results, shows a somewhat stronger suppression effect up to $x\approx 11$. This is likely due to the more accurate treatment of the partial DR data of @badnell entering the collisional-radiative modeling, although some difference due to the collisional-radiative modeling itself may also be present. This indicates that even collisional plasmas require collisional-radiative 