Quote: 
Great to hear that we have the PRG of ~16 now!
Is this 150ppm an avg loss per mirror, or per arm?

I realized that I did not have a Finesse model to reflect the current situation of flipped folding mirrors (I've been looking at 'ideal' RC cavity lengths with folding mirrors oriented with HR side inside the cavity so we didn't have to worry about the substrate/AR surface losses), and it took me a while to put together a model for the current configuration. Of course this calculation does not need a Finesse model but I thought it would be useful nevertheless.
In summary  the model with which the attached plot was generated assumes the following:
 Arm lengths of 37.79m, given our recent modification of the Y arm length
 RC lengths are all taken from here, I have modelled the RC folding mirrors as flipped with the substrate and AR surface losses taken from the spec sheet
 The X axis is the average arm loss  i.e. (L_{ITMX}+L_{ITMY}+L_{ETMX}+L_{ETMY})/2. In the model, I have distributed the loss equally between the ITMs and ETMs.
This calculation agrees well with the analytic results Yutaro computed here  the slight difference is possibly due to assuming different losses in the RC folding mirrors.
The conclusion from this study seems to be that the arm loss is now in the 100150ppm range (so each mirror has 5075ppm loss). But these numbers are only so reliable, we need an independent loss measurement to verify. In fact, during last night's locking efforts, the arm transmission sometimes touched 400 (=> PRG ~22), which according to these plots suggest total arm losses of ~50ppm, which would mean each mirror has only 25ppm loss, which seems a bit hard to believe. 