$\sim 90^\circ$. Calculating the $\chi^2$ for the four observables finds the best fit for $\theta \simeq 88^\circ$. In other words we obtain a reasonable fit for the decay widths assuming that the $D_{s1}^*(2710)^\pm$ is primarily the $1^3D_1(c\bar{s})$ state and the $D_{sJ}^*(2860)$ is primarily the $2^3S_1(c\bar{s})$ state. This, however, is inconsistent with the mass predictions and implies that the $2^3S_1(c\bar{s})$ is more massive than the $1^3D_1(c\bar{s})$. We are aware that in this scenario the predicted $D_{s1}^*(2710)^\pm$ width is smaller than the observed width but as stated previously, we consider the difference to be within the predictive power of the model.

A more serious discrepancy is that for the $1^3D_1(c\bar{s})$ state the predicted $D_{s1}^*(2700)^\pm$ $\Gamma(D^*K)/\Gamma(DK)$ ratio is about a factor of two smaller than what is observed. It is possible that various corrections could bring the predicted value for this ratio into closer agreement with experiment. For example, the amplitudes for the decays $1^3D_1(c\bar{s}) \to D^*K$ and $DK$ are the “structure dependent” type, Eqn.\[eqn:d\_decay\], which we approximated with a constant. In previous calculations we found that this approximation gave reasonably good agreement with experiment and other models [@Godfrey:1986wj; @Blundell:1995au; @Godfrey:2005ww]. However, if in Eqn.\[eqn:d\_decay\] one takes into account the smaller phase space 