Quantify what fraction of our sample "worked": meaning the period and amplitude are trustworthy

[gully]

We want to quantify what fraction are in the green box, compared to the total sample:

@RyanHartung informs that: out of 4,196 attempted TESS sources, only 1085 had postage stamp data available, and therefore lightcurves on MAST. So about 25.9% had data available. We expect that with the addition of eleanor-lite, we should get close to 99% of sources with a ready-made (and hopefully trustworthy) lightcurve.

We have essentially convinced ourselves that it will be very difficult to measure periods greater than about 7 days. Therefore we're pretty much stuck with even less than the rapid rotator sample (which had been defined for <10 days). 222 sources came up with TESS periods greater than 7 (these are probably not trustworhy). So therefore, about 20% have to be discarded, leaving us with at most about 3300 sources.

Of those 3300 some fraction will suffer from various lightcurve data artifacts, and will have to be discarded. We are targeting a "survival rate" of about 55%, which would yield about 1800 sources. We want to make the survival rate as high as possible, but there is an economic tradeoff in time. So the 55% number is a cost/benefit analysis of the value of our time in scrutinizing all the flaws in the lightcurves.

[RyanHartung]

There are 304 objects inside of the green box, which makes up about 7% of the total 4196 objects.

[RyanHartung]

After rerunning the program with the updated periodogram method, there are now 530 objects, which make up about 13% of the total 4196 objects. Below are the updated graphics as well: