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.
High confidence for 4359. The SED is reasonable. Convincing position. Has low S/N and a dicey line profile/flat field shape, but I don't have quantitative grounds to exclude it.
Doubtless.
Nice supporting photo-z and SED. There are other possible counterparts, the next most likely being 4309, but all would be LAEs by our EW selection. High confidence on this counterpart match.
The imaging was tricky here with contamination from a nearby star, however, the classification is doubtless.
Many possible counterparts, but location of highest flux fiber suggests #4100. The phot-z agrees.
HST shows two sources, perhaps interacting. Doubtless classification and association at ground based resolution, at least.
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.
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.
Very low EW, but matches the NED redshift. Doubtless.
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.
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.
Multiple lines, this is [OII] to be cross-listed with index 38 which is [OIII]5007. Doubtless.
Multiple lines, this is [OII] to be cross-listed with index 37 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 40 as [OII], 42 as Hgamma, 43 as Hbeta, 46 as Hdelta. 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.
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.
Doubtless.
Doubtless. This [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 29.
Doubtless. This [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 28.
Doubtless.
Doubtless. This is [OII] to be cross-listed with 31.
Doubtless.
Doubtless. This is Hgamma to be cross-listed with 31.
Doubtless. This is Hbeta to be cross-listed with 31.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless. This is Hdelta to be cross-listed with 31.
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 53 as Hgamma, 57 as Hbeta.
Doubtlessly Hgamma, with many cross references. Cross-list to 53 as Hgamma, 57 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 52 and 53.
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 [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 65 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.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature being fit.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature being fit.
Doubtless, this is [OII] to be cross-listed with 60 which is [OIII]5007.
Doubtless.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature being fit.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature being fit.
Doubtless.
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 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.
Doubtless. This is [OII] to be cross-listed with 88 as Hbeta and 172 as [OIII]5007.
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. 
Doubtless. This is Hbeta to be cross-listed with 82 as [OII] and 172 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.
Doubtless. Two (maybe interacting) galaxies as HST resolution.
There are several counterpart options here, but the nearest and brightest is the most probable. 
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.
Doubtless.
This has high classification confidence but low association confidence. There are several possible counterparts and little constraining spatial information. I'm not using the best centered counterpart, #65578, because it might just be a tail off the nearby bright galaxy. I'm going with #66012 which has a very unconstrained SED and photo-z.
This one has medium confidence for classification and low for association. There's an object at HST resolution that missed the imaging catalog because of blending that may be an LAE, although the Uband flux makes this doubtful. The best association, #66853, has a photo-z that puts our measurement outside the 95% confidence, but that photo-z is low-z too. The detection is very weak and may be noise, but we'll leave it as [OII] here.
High confidence on classiciation and association. Although there are other, perhaps spurious, catalog counterparts available, the choice is clear.
Doubtless.
A nice, very dim LAE.
High confidence in classification and association.
High confidence in classification and association.
High confidence in classification and association.
Doubtlessly [OII]. Cross-list with 107 as [OIII]5007.
Doubtlessly [OIII]5007. Cross-list with 106 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.
This one also has low confidence in classification and medium confidence in association. Counterpart #65631 is by far the best centered, and I don't have evidence to instead believe the less centered counterparts. The EW is easily high enough to call this an LAE, so I do, but the SED and photo-z are in conflict with the high-z claim.
Doubtless.
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.
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.
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 Hgamma4340 and should be cross-listed with detection 123 which is Hdelta4102 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.
High confidence that this is Hdelta4102 to be cross-listed with 119 as Hgamma4340 and 127 which is [NeIII]3869.
Doubtless. 
High confidence on classification, medium confidence on association. #68151 cannot be excluded, but #68150 is the obvious first choice due to it's centering.
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 [NeIII]3869 to be cross-listed with 119 as Hgamma4340 and 123 which is Hdelta4102. 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 131 is Hbeta. Detection 132 is [OIII]5007. Detection 140 is [OIII]4959 near 5577 and so poorly fit.
Doubtless. This is Hbeta. To be cross-listed with 130 as [OII], 132 as [OIII]5007, and 140 as [OIII]4959. 
Doubtless. This is [OIII]5007. To be cross-listed with 130 as [OII], 131 as Hbeta, and 140 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.
This has a high chance of being noise due to the very unsmooth line profile, but I call it an unmatched LAE for now lacking consistent quantitative grounds for rejection. There are no plausible imaging counterparts.
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). 
Doubtless for #46025. This is very weak [OII] emission. I verify this by seeing H+K and the G band. 
Junk. A broad, spectral feature on bright continuum in #46025. 
Doubtless. This is [OIII]4959. To be cross-listed with 130 as [OII], 131 as Hbeta, and 132 as [OIII]5007. 
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.
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.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright star.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright star.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless. This is [OII], to be cross-listed with 161 as Hbeta.
Doubtless. This is Hbeta, to be cross-listed with 160 as [OII].
Doubtless, this is [OII] to be cross-listed with 163 as Hbeta.
Doubtless, this is Hbeta to be cross-listed with 162 as [OII].
Doubtless.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Doubtless.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
High confidence on classification, low confidence on association. #8575 could be the counterpart or there may be none.
Doubtless. This is [OII]. The other detections are all just continuum blips.
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 82 as [OII] and 88 as Hbeta.
Doubtless. 
Doubtless.
High confidence on classification, low confidence on association. There may be no counterpart or it may be #5933.
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.
This is an unlikely aperture choice and the low S/N and large number of fibers makes this likely noise. I take the nearest companion, but there is very low confidence here.
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.
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.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
Doubtless.
Perhaps #24619 is the counterpart or there is none, but an LAE nonetheless.
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 201 as Hbeta and 202 as [OIII]5007. 
High confidence on classification and medium confidence on association. 
Doubtless. This is Hbeta to be cross-listed with 199 as [OII] and 202 as [OIII]5007. 
Doubtless. This is [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 199 as [OII] and 201 as Hbeta. 
High confidence. The SED looks good but is not discriminating.
Doubtless.
High confidence on classification and medium confidence on association with #68286. 
High confidence.
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. 
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.
Medium confidence. The astrometry is off more than usual, but #90517 is the most likely.
High confidence on #93336 as an LAE.
High confidence on #93166. This is probably a high-EW [OII] emitter. The SED cannot be an LAE.
High confidence.
Doubtless.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
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.
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 223 as [NeIII]3869. 
Doubtless, this [NeIII]3869 to be cross-listed with 222 as [OII]. 
Doubtless.
Doubtless. This is [OII] to be cross-listed with 226 as [OIII]5007.
Doubtless. This is [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 225 as [OII].
High confidence on classification, low on association. There are closer counterparts, but #24420 is the only one that's real with high confidence. Any would be an LAE.
Junk. A low EW feature on a bright object.
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.
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.
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. 
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. 
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.
Low confidence on association, high confidence on classification. The best counterpart is #92767 solely by being the best centered but others are possible. 
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
High confidence on classification, medium on association. #33354 is the best counterpart. 
Doubtless.
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.
The astrometry must be very bad here since we get such strong continuum. I think this is a junk, low EW continuum blip detection.
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.
High confidence to #89743.
Doubtless.
High confidence to #62271.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
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 for #87750 as an [OII] emitter.
While #63184 might be the counterpart, I have to go with the more likely option of #63188 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.
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. A low EW, broad continuum feature.
Doubtless.