Many possible counterparts, but location of highest flux fiber suggests #4100. The phot-z agrees.
The only plausible counterpart is #4231, but it has an ill fitting high-z SED and conflicting photo-z. This may be noise, but I classify it as a counterpart-less detection.
Nice supporting photo-z and SED. There are other possible counterparts, the next most likely being 4274, but all would be LAEs by our EW selection. High confidence on this counterpart match.
HST shows two sources, perhaps interacting. Doubtless classification and association at ground based resolution, at least.
Doubtless.
The imaging was tricky here with contamination from a nearby star, however, the classification is doubtless.
Doubtless.
Several potential counterparts, but #68357 is best centered and brightest. Little doubt here.
The two likely counterpart choices are #68206 and #68290, although it's plausible to be both. Their SEDs are not discriminating, but the photo-z's for both are high and near our measurement. I'm assigning the counterpart as the closer one. The classification is secure here, but the association is less so. There's a Chandra association with #68290 and a XMM source. 
Doubtless.
High confidence in association.
Two sources at HST resolution, but either would be LAEs by EW. The SED is not discriminating and they're not in the photo-z catalog. High confidence here.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Low confidence on classification and association. The most likely counterpart is #68451 which I use, but the SED is mildly not consistent with the high-z value the EW would indicate. Could just be noise.
Low confidence detection and association. The best counterpart (#68354) is quite off center and has a mildly inconsistent SED for high-z.
Stunningly blank for counterparts, but high confidence detection.
Doubtless.
Many possible counterparts. All would be LAEs by EW cuts. SEDs are not discriminating and there's no photo-z information. High confidence on classification, medium confidence on association.
High confidence on classification, medium confidence on association. #68151 cannot be excluded, but #68150 is the obvious first choice due to it's centering.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Junk. Very low EW feature caused by flat field error on very bright object.
Counterpart #8895 might also be contributing, but #8896 is better centered and more likely. Also, the #8895 photo-z is low and the #8896 is high (although we're outside their 95% confidence with our measurement). High confidence on classification, medium confidence on association.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
High confidence on classification. Many possible counterparts, but all would be LAEs by the EW cut. #9838 is high-z in the photo-z catalog, but we're outside the confidence range. Because I went extreme in the deblending parameters and did no catalog cleaning, the kron is crazy and wildly misestimated the flux. I scaled the EW and R band from the COSMOS catalog on this one. Although it's not strictly the closest, I take #9838 as the counterpart due to the spatial flux distribution.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Multiple lines, this is [OII] to be cross-listed with index 36 which is [OIII]5007. Doubtless.
Next best counterpart is #12075 and would be just over the EW cut, but #12074 is much better centered and high confidence.
Many other lines, this is [OIII]5007. Cross-listing are 37 as [OII], 39 as Hgamma, 41 as Hbeta, 43 as Hdelta. Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Low confidence on classification due to many counterparts. The best centered is #10144 which would be an LAE by the EW cut. #10146 would have an EW cut too low to make the LAE cut but has a high photo-z. #10145 is an obvious low-z object but is quite offcenter. SED is not discriminating. 
Doubtless.
Doubtless. This [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 30.
Doubtless. This is [OII] to be cross-listed with 32.
Doubtless.
Doubtless. This is Hgamma to be cross-listed with 32.
Doubtless. This is Hbeta to be cross-listed with 32.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless. This is Hdelta to be cross-listed with 32.
This is a catalog blending problem. There are several counterpart possibilities, but all obviously low-z. I'm taking the brightest one, but they all probably contribute so this EW is an upper estimate.
Doubtless.
Some uncertainty on the classification due to two counterparts being plausible. #10449 would be an LAE and #10448 would be low-z. I'm going with #10448 because the #10449 SED is mildly inconsistent with the high-z model. This could be due to bad deblending, but it's my only available evidence and the image really appears to have unblended U flux. 
Doubtless.
This is obviously a low-z object that was incorrectly classified by the automatic methods. Of the 4 EW estimators, the one we use happened to be high here and put the object just above the EW cut. The SED excludes the high-z possibility, though. 
Doubtlessly [OII], with many cross references. Cross-list to 50 as Hgamma, 54 as Hbeta. A Chandra source.
Doubtlessly Hgamma, with many cross references. Cross-list to 49 as [OII], 54 as Hbeta.
High confidence on the classification, medium confidence on the association. There's quite a difference in position because of differential atmospheric refraction.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature being fit.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature being fit.
This is Hbeta to be cross listed with 49 and 50.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature being fit.
High confidence on classification and association. The very bright well centered source is surely the counterpart, although there are a number of other, marginal possibilities spatially a bit off. Our SED for #10087 is not discriminating. The photo-z for #10087 is high, but we're outside it's 95% range.
Doubtless.
Doubtless, this is [OII] to be cross-listed with 59 which is [OIII]5007.
Doubtless, this is [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 58 which is [OII].
This is a difficult case. There are multiple possibilities here, but they're blended in the imaging catalog. Although there looks to be some interesting objects that might be either HII regions or superimposed galaxies, I have no information to decide that question. Very cleanly deblended SEDs would help answer that. I surrender for now and associate this with #11562 although that's a very low confidence association. The EW also gets calculated to be high, but there's likely a single band problem that sent the extrapolation off because the other EW estimators are lower.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature being fit.
Doubtless.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature being fit.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature being fit.
Doubtless.
Doubtless. 
Medium confidence in classification and association. The better centered object is #6635. There's a chance the object could be #6773 in which case the EW cut would make this an LAE, but #6773 also has an SED inconsistent with a high-z fit. 
Junk. This is bad cross talk from a bright neighbor. 
Junk. This is bad cross talk from a bright neighbor. 
Junk. This is bad cross talk from a bright neighbor.
Junk. This is bad cross talk from a bright neighbor. 
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature being fit.
Junk. This is bad cross talk from a bright neighbor. 
Junk. This is bad cross talk from a bright neighbor. 
Junk. This is bad cross talk from a bright neighbor. 
Junk. This is bad cross talk from a bright neighbor. 
Junk. This is bad cross talk from a bright neighbor. 
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature being fit.
Junk. This is bad cross talk from a bright neighbor.
Doubtless. This is [OII] to be cross-listed with 84 as Hbeta and 153 as [OIII]5007.
While I really want to take this as a real looking object, the problem is that the fiber trace started to go off chip here as can be seen in the detection file. I have to call this junk to be safe.
Junk. This is bad cross talk from a bright neighbor. 
Junk. This is bad cross talk from a bright neighbor. 
Junk. This is bad cross talk from a bright neighbor. 
Junk. This is bad cross talk from a bright neighbor. 
Doubtless. This is Hbeta to be cross-listed with 78 as [OII] and 153 as [OIII]5007.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature being fit.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature being fit.
Doubtless.
Total confidence on classification and high confidence on association.
There are several counterpart options here, but the nearest and brightest is the most probable. An XMM source.
This doesn't appear to be associated with detection 94 despite their spatial proximity. There are several counterpart options, none of them well centered, that would all likely be low-z anyhow so high classification confidence here but low association confidence. By nearest counterpart, and by process of elimination with detection 94, #67420 is the most likely here. The SED here also excludes a high-z classification even thought the EW is quite high.
Although there are other wimpy counterpart options available here, none of the others are very realistic due to their positions and the poor Kron apertures often chosen. The next best counterpart is #67395 which would be an LAE, but it's unlikely to have put flux in all the necessary fibers. Medium confidence on association and classification. #67422 is a Chandra source.
High confidence on classiciation and association. Although there are other, perhaps spurious, catalog counterparts available, the choice is clear.
High confidence in classification and association.
High confidence in classification and association.
High confidence in classification and association.
Doubtlessly [OII]. Cross-list with 96 as [OIII]5007.
Doubtlessly [OIII]5007. Cross-list with 95 as [OII].
Low confidence on classification, high confidence on association. The photo-z for #65638 says low-z, but our SED is not discriminating. The extrapolated EW is higher than the other estimators, but they all land above 20 Ang. I tentatively call this an LAE, but it's unprecedentedly bright to be so. At HST resolution, this might actually be two unrelated objects.
Doubtless. A Chandra source.
High confidence on classification, medium confidence on association. #66731 is the most obvious counterpart choice and has a nicely agreeing SED. However, #66733 and #66732 can also not be excluded as contributing objects. 
High confidence on classification and association. The SEDs of any possible counterparts strongly exclude a high-z answer.
Doubtless.
High confidence on classification and medium confidence on association. #67960 is the best centered so I use it, but #67961 might also be the counterpart. The SED is consistent with the high-z classification but not highly constraining. The photo-z is high and we're just within it's 95% confidence.
Doubtless.
High confidence on classification and association. Non-discriminating but consistent SED.   
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
This was a tricky classification, but I now have high confidence based on the multiple IDed lines. These weren't common lines, so the redet files didn't catch them. This line is Hgamma and should be cross-listed with detection 123 which is Hdelta and 127 which is [NeIII]3869 which is usually found in Seyfert I's. The GALEX FUV band is also booming, which has LyA centered in it at this redshift. 
This one has high association confidence but low classification confidence. The EW cut makes it an LAE formally, but it's very hard to tell. There are no other lines at high significance, and the SED is not discriminating. The photo-z has a huge range and includes both our low and high z's at 68% confidence. This would again be an unprecedentedly bright LAE or perhaps an unusually high EW [OII] emitter. 
Doubtless.
Low confidence on classification and association. The three that need to be discussed, at a minimum, are #67450, #67577, and #67574. All three would have EWs that would classify them as LAEs. The SEDs are #67450 and #67574 are strongly inconsistent with the high-z model, but #67577 is somewhat consistent with the high-z model. The #67577 photo-z is high, but we're outside the 95% confidence. There exists the possibility that two or more of these objects are at the same redshift and are being fit simultaneously without an excessive EW present in any one of them. I argue that the true counterparts here are both #67574 and #67577 based on the slight velocity offset between the red and cyan fibers, but this is a low strength argument with the noise. I've only entered #67574 in the list, but please label both (including #67577) as the counterparts. I've also tweaked the listed EW to use both objects.
This is an unlucky cosmic ray hit where the first shot got masked, the third shot didn't catch a cosmic ray, and there wasn't enough clean pixels to reject the double-hit. Junk.
High confidence that this is Hdelta to be cross-listed with 107 as Hgamma and 114 which is [NeIII]3869.
Doubtless. 
High confidence that this is [NeIII]3869 to be cross-listed with 107 as Hgamma and 112 which is Hdelta. The EW is high enough to violate our usual EW classification rules.
High confidence on classification and association. #65021 might also be considered, but it's SED is very wrong for high-z which the EW would just barely suggest. 
Doubtless.
Doubtless. #66728 is perhaps a star forming knot and would have a booming EW (418 Ang LyA restframe) alone, but it's almost certainly part of #66727 so it is improper to quote it's EW individually. #66727 it is. There are many cross-listings. This is [OII]. Detection 118 is Hbeta. Detection 120 is [OIII]5007. Detection 119 is [OIII]4959 near 5577 and so poorly fit.
Doubtless. This is Hbeta. To be cross-listed with 117 as [OII], 120 as [OIII]5007, and 119 as [OIII]4959. 
Doubtless. This is [OIII]4959. To be cross-listed with 117 as [OII], 118 as Hbeta, and 120 as [OIII]5007. 
Doubtless. This is [OIII]5007. To be cross-listed with 117 as [OII], 118 as Hbeta, and 119 as [OIII]4959. 
High confidence on classication, low confidence on association. Any of #67002, #67096, or #67074 may be the counterpart(s). They all meet the EW cut to be an LAE. I'm taking #67002 as it's slightly closer to our measured position, but not significant statistically. The SEDs for all three look consistent with high-z but are not discriminating. #67002 is in the photo-z catalog and gets a high-z, but one with a 95% range outside our measurement.
Doubtless.
Doubtless for #66008 as [OII].
Very low confidence on classification and association. #66310 and #66311 must both be considered. I go with #66311, but without good reason but to be conservative in LAE identification. #66311 is [OII] by the EW cut and the photo-z. The EW #66310 would make it an LAE if we chose it, and the photo-z for it is very non-discriminating (95% contains everything up to z=2.8, not quite our measurement). 
Junk. A broad, spectral feature on bright continuum in #46025. 
High confidence. This object is more off center than is common, but it's still the plausible counterpart.
Doubtless. 
There might be a a very dim object in the imaging that didn't make the catalog, and then it is obviously an LAE by the EW cut. But given the catalog, no counterpart. 
Junk. Cross talk continuum contamination/noise from a nearby star.
Doubtlessly an LAE. The SED is not discriminating but consistent for high-z. The photo-z predicts high z, but again we're outside the 95% confidence.
Doubtless.
Junk. A low EW continuum feature from a very bright star.
Junk. A low EW continuum feature from a very bright star.
This one's not confident. #1217 is not well centered and looks marginally brighter in another observed fiber and without notable emission. Also, it has a photo-z higher than we observe. If #1454 is a real detection, this line could belong to that counterpart but it's hard to say. Then again, my SED fit for low-z looks good for #1217, so it's the most likely I'd say. 
Low confidence on association and classification. #3917 is by the EW barely an LAE, and #3916 is barely low-z. Both have high photo-z's near what we measure. I choose #3917 as it's just barely closer.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright star.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright star.
Junk. Cross talk from a nearby star giving false flux.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless, this is [OII] to be cross-listed with 144 as Hbeta.
Doubtless, this is Hbeta to be cross-listed with 143 as [OII].
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object. A Chandra source and an XMM one.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object. A Chandra source and maybe an XMM one (9.8" off).
Doubtless. This is [OII]. The other detections are all just continuum blips.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
High confidence on classification, medium confidence on association. #30412 is likely the counterpart. The photo-z has a high-z but with a 95% confidence outside the measurement. The SED is not discriminating. 
Doubtless. This is [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 78 as [OII] and 84 as Hbeta.
Doubtless. 
Doubtless.
High confidence on classification, low confidence on association. The best counterpart is #5975 but it's not too compelling.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Doubtless.
High confidence on classification and medium confidence on association. Although not the closest, #1475 has an agreeable SED and photo-z for high z. #1481, for instance, would be an LAE by the EW cut but has a disagreeing SED and photo-z. 
Doubtless.
High confidence on classification, low confidence on association. #3100 appears to first glance to be a valid counterpart. The SED is mildly disfavored due to a low significance Uband detection which might not be real. No other counterparts are compelling, although the no-counterpart option can't be rejected. 
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless. An obvious AGN (Chandra loud but not XMM-Newton).
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Doubtless.
Perhaps #24619 is the counterpart or there is none, but an LAE nonetheless.
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
High confidence on classification and low confidence on association. The counterpart could be #65350 or #65402 or none, but I take #65350 as nominally most likely.
High confidence.
Doubtless. This is [OII] to be cross-listed with 182 as Hbeta and 183 as [OIII]5007. 
High confidence on classification and medium confidence on association. 
Doubtless. This is Hbeta to be cross-listed with 180 as [OII] and 183 as [OIII]5007. 
Doubtless. This is [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 180 as [OII] and 182 as Hbeta. 
Low confidence on association, high confidence on classification. The best counterpart is #92767 solely by being the best centered but others are possible. 
Doubtless. There's a distant (7.8" off) XMM source that's probably unassociated.
High confidence. The SED looks good but is not discriminating.
High confidence on classification and medium confidence on association with #68286. 
High confidence.
Low association confidence, medium classification confidence. Formally by the EW cut, even #65736 would be an LAE although it's morphology is quite unlikely for that. The best odds are that #65735 is the counterpart or there is none.
High confidence on classification, low confidence on association. There are many counterpart options, the best of which is probably #92776, but #92768 is also very likely. 
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
High confidence on classification. There seems to be no counterpart.
Medium confidence. #91759 as [OII] is the most likely. If instead the counterpart is #91758, this is an LAE. It could also be that multiple systems are contributing line flux.
High confidence on #93166. This is probably a high-EW [OII] emitter. The SED cannot be an LAE.
High confidence on #93336 as an LAE.
Medium confidence. The astrometry is off more than usual, but #90517 is the most likely.
High confidence to #89743.
Junk. A funny repeat detection.
High confidence.
Medium confidence on classification and association. #23398 may or may not be a real detection, so I go with #23399 as the most likely. Either would be an LAE. If I'm very wrong and the counterpart is #23195, it would be a low-z object.
Doubtless.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
High confidence.
Junk. A cosmic ray and cross talk from a bright fiber.
Doubtless.
Although there's more astrometry error here than usual, the counterpart is doubtless due to the bright continuum in our detection.
Doubtless.
Doubtless, this is [OII] to be cross-listed with 209 as [NeIII]3869. 
Doubtless, this [NeIII]3869 to be cross-listed with 208 as [OII]. 
Doubtless.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Doubtless. This is [OII] to be cross-listed with 213 as [OIII]5007.
Doubtless. This is [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 212 as [OII].
Doubtless.
This object's a little frightening what with it's line width and large aperture size, but it's probably real. The best counterpart is #27908. Any would be an LAE. #27975 is a Chandra source but quite far from the emission centroid.  Also an XMM source.
Low confidence on association and classification. By EW cut, #28128 would be an [OII] emitter and #28127 an LAE. However, I'm fairly sure we're looking at #28128 since we detect so much continuum. Also, the photo-z of neither is high. There's an XMM source 7.4" away which is probably unassociated.
High confidence on association and classification. Too dim to be in photo-z catalog or to have a useful SED.
Doubtless.
High confidence. This is outside our usual astrometry solution, but #30085 is likely the counterpart. There's an XMM source 7.7" away that's probably unassociated.
High confidence. There are other counterparts possible, but #30324 is the most likely especially with our bright continuum detection.
Low confidence on association and classification. The photo-z of #28595 is near our measurement and we keep this as the most likely. However, there's a chance that #28594 is an LAE although it has a poor SED for that.
Doubtless.
High confidence on classification, medium on association. I can't find anything wrong with #28114. There's a chance #28116 is the counterpart, but it's SED is slightly worse and it's slightly further away. 
High confidence on classification and medium on association. #30760 is best, but others are possible. There's a very far off XMM source that's probably unassociated.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
High confidence on classification, medium on association. #33354 is the best counterpart. 
Doubtless. An XMM source.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
If the line's real, the best counterpart is #35171. However, #35232 may also be the counterpart or there may be none.
High confidence on classification, medium confidence on association. #87569 is best. 
High confidence on classification, medium confidence on association. #88987 is best. #88986 could also be the counterpart or there may be none. Either of these would be LAEs by the EW cut. #88986 is a Chandra source.
The astrometry must be very bad here since we get such strong continuum. I think this is a junk, low EW continuum blip detection. There's a Chandra source between 86867 and 86868. 
The astrometry is probably very bad here, so I'm not sure. It's hard to believe we're so far off as to get to the counterparts at the cutout's edges. I'm going to give this a low confidence classification and association to #88132 and call the spectrum measured continuum flat field errors.
Doubtless.
Low confidence on classification and association. The best counterpart is #62133 as an LAE, but it could also be #62134 as an [OII] emitter.
High confidence to #62271.
Doubtless.
While #63184 might be the counterpart, I have to go with the more likely option of #63188 as an [OII] emitter.
Doubtless.
Doubtless. A distant, 6.6" XMM source that's probably unassociated. 
High confidence for #87750 as an [OII] emitter.
Doubtless.
Junk. A low EW continuum blip on this star.
Junk. A low EW continuum blip on this star.
Junk. A low EW continuum blip on this star.