I analyzed the data we took yesterday, both using AS11 and AS55. For each value of the phase I estimated the Q/P ratio using a demodulation code. Then I used a linear regression fit to estimate the zero crossing point.
Here are the plots of the data points with the fits:
The measurements a re more noisy in the PRMI configuration, as expected since we had a lot of angular motion. Also, the AS11 data is more noisy. However, the estimated phase differences between PRMI and MICH configurations are:
 AS11 = 10.9 + 1.0 degrees
 AS55 = 21.1 + 0.4 degrees
The simulation already described in slogs 9539 and 9541 provides the calibration in terms of PRC length. Here are the curves
The corresponding length errors are
 AS11 = 1.44 + 0.13 cm
 AS55 = 0.59 + 0.01 cm
The two results are not consistent one with the other and they are both not consistent with the previous estimate of 4 cm based on the 55MHz sideband peak splitting.
I don't know the reason for this incongruence. I checked the simulation, repeating it with Optickle and I got the same results. So I'm confident that the simulation is not completely wrong.
I also tried to understand which parameters of the IFO can affect the result. The following ones have no impact
 Beam matching
 ITM curvatures
 Schnupp asymmetry
 Distance PRBS
 ITM and PRM misalignments
The only parameters that could affect the curves are offsets in MICH and PRCL locking point. We should check if this is happening. A first quick look (with EricQ) seems to indicate that we indeed have an offset in PRCL. However, tonight the PRMI is not locking stably on the sidebands.
If possibile, we will repeat the measurement later on tonight, checking first the PRCL offset.
