an RMS discrepancy between our redshifts and the literature values of $4\times10^{-4}$. C3R2 redshifts are often higher precision than the literature values, which likely explains this small difference. There is no systematic difference between the C3R2 and literature redshifts.

Redshift results and Calibration progress
=========================================

A total of 1825 sources were targeted in the 2016A observations. We identified 1131 Q=4 redshifts, 27 Q=3.5 redshifts, and 125 Q=3 redshifts. In principle, only the highest confidence redshifts would be used for calibration for cosmology; whether this restricts usable sources to those with Q=4 is worth investigating. Another 99 spectra yielded redshifts of low confidence (Q=1/2), while there were 443 failures. Of these, 409 were failure code $-91$ or $-92$, indicating that the source was too faint or lacking in identifying features, while 34 were code $-93$ or $-94$, indicating a corrupted or missing slit.

In terms of the SOM presented in M15, and using only the C3R2 sources observed in COSMOS with Q $\geq$ 3 for this analysis (911 redshifts), we have increased color space coverage by 5.4%. Figure \[figure:mag\_and\_z\_dist\] shows the *i*-band magnitude distribution and redshift distribution of the 2016A “gold" sample of Q=4 sources as well as the Q=3/3.5 sources. 