Develop theories on atmospheric retention and loss

We need a draft for the atmospheric retention paper section on Mars analogs. Replace the speculative paragraph that blames solar wind solely with a testable claim: compare thermal escape rates and sputtering contributions for low‑pressure CO2 atmospheres, include the key equations and data sources, and mark figures for review by Dr. Liang by Friday.

Before I send this section to Dr. Liang, make it easy to review — move the main conclusion to the first paragraph, summarize the assumptions under each model, make the escape rate equations visible and annotated, and flag any data gaps that would cause a reviewer to hesitate.

I ran a thermal escape model and it predicts higher loss than our sputtering estimate, but I’m not confident the solar EUV input spectrum I used is correct for the era modeled. I can’t tell whether the discrepancy is model error or a real physical result. Given that uncertainty, should I rerun with alternate EUV histories now or present both outcomes and ask Dr. Liang which to prioritize?

Each draft on atmospheric loss gets sent back complaining about inconsistent boundary conditions and archaic solar input data; I then redo runs and lose weeks. Which habit should I change in how I set and document initial conditions so reviewers stop forcing repeated reruns?