I have a few questions regarding this dataset:

Regarding this dataset, should I change figure_by from 'eta' to 'radius' in the metadata file? Given that the two subfigures I'm implementing are differentiated by radius.

Also, should I add 'radius' as a variable in the kinematic coverage?

Finally, is there not a rapidity bin missing? namely 1.37 < eta < 1.56?

For reference, the HEPData link: https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins2628741

And the figure:

@enocera

Regarding this dataset, should I change figure_by from 'eta' to 'radius' in the metadata file? Given that the two subfigures I'm implementing are differentiated by radius.

For the kinematic variables, sqrts is not necessary as this is taken directly from the dataset (13 TeV).

Then, regarding the rest. I'd say these are either two different observables or two variants (@enocera should decide), but the radius is not part of the kinematic variables. eta and the transverse energy instead are (as we might want to apply cuts on them for instance).

@enocera another question, does this measurement makes the other 13 TeV photon that we have obsolete? i.e., when running grids, do you want me to focus on this one?

@vschutze-alt (cc @scarlehoff ) Concering the radius, I think that here the situation is similar to that we have with single-inclusive jet or di-jet production, in which indeed we can have two versions of the same data set that differ for the jet radius. In that case we have implemented two variants of the same data set, therefore I would do the same here. To have an idea of how a variant works in this case, you can have a look at CMS_1JET_13TEV_DIF.
@scarlehoff Yes, this measurement will make the companion 13 TeV measurement already in NNPDF4.0 outdated. But we want to have grids for both. We may end up finding issues with this new data set and decide to stick to the old one. Also I imagine that Stefano, Richard an Juan, at some, point, would like to study both data sets with NNLO grids. But of course you decide how to proceed with the grid computation. Are, by any chance, the binning and the cuts the same for the two data sets, so that we can re-use the same grids?
@vschutze-alt Concerning the rapidity binning, it seems to me that the bins displayed in the plot above are consistent with those for which there are Hepdata tables. In other words: I don't see Hepdata tables for the 1.37<eta<1.56 bin (but I'm in an airport lounge as I write, so I may be wrong). My feeling is that the experimental setup is such that there is a "missing" rapidity bin. Possibly some additional piece of information is contained in the paper?