The classification is secure by EW, but the association is uncertain. This may be LyA with counterpart 4191 or it may be without a counterpart.
Doubtless.
Junk. Low EW continuum feature.
Doubtless.
Uncertain, but likely to just be a low EW continuum feature and junk. There's a chance this is a background LAE near the star, but that's less likely.
Low confidence on everything. The most likely counterpart is #6044 as an [OII] emitter. There's a chance #6039 is a real counterpart and the line is LyA. Although 6039 is closer in centroid, the extent of 6044 gives it a very slightly higher chance of being the counterpart according to the calculated spatially based probability. It's also conceiveable that either of these could have contributed flux to both fibers. Mainly to be conservative, I call 6044 the most likely.
A confusing complex, but certainly low-z. There are two lines at almost exactly the same position with wavelengths that don't make sense with each other. The second line, entry 8, is very broad but appears to be real. It could almost be the hump between two absorption lines, but the wavelengths don't make sense with this item's redshift. The associations here are not certain and the photometry is very blended. I nominally call this [OII] for #6595.
See entry 7. This is low certainty on association, but is certainly low-z if even real. The line's very broad and suspicious. I nominally call this [OII] for #6596.
A nice, isolated LAE at #4369.
A clear [OII] emitter at #4639. The formal EW is above 20\AA, but that comes from a high measurement of EW compared to the other 3 because of extrapolation with error issues. The EW isn't really this high, and it should really instead come from the SED. If I do that, I get 15.14\AA restframe assuming LyA.
Doubtless.
High confidence on classification, medium confidence on association. I suspect counterpart #6281 isn't even real, so I prefer #6179. Either make the EW cut with ease. 
Doubtless.
Doubtless. Broad line profile suggests an AGN. No obvious CIV.
High confidence. Clean LAE.
This is a pretty wimpy EW and medium S/N line detection, but I do think it's real. Then, the classification and association becomes doubtless as [OII] for #4703.
Undoubtedly [OII] for #5062 to be cross-listed with entry 19 as Hbeta, 20 as [OIII]4959, and 21 as [OIII]5007.
High confidence on classification, low confidence on association. Could be either #5003 or 5004 as the counterpart. 
Doubtless. To be cross-listed with entry 17 as [OII], 20 as [OIII]4959, and 21 as [OIII]5007.
Doubtless. To be cross-listed with entry 17 as [OII], 19 as Hbeta, and 21 as [OIII]5007.
Doubtless. To be cross-listed with entry 17 as [OII], 19 as Hbeta, and 20 as [OIII]4959.
High confidence on classification, but a funny velocity offset makes me suspicious about the counterparts. If there were two reasonable counterparts, I'd call these superimposed group members, but the only valid counterpart really is #5150.
This is a suspicious detection. It's broad and weak, but there is a fine counterpart. I think this is junk and low EW continuum structure, although there's a chance it's weak [OII]. 
Medium confidence on everything. The more likely and closer option is an [OII] emitter in #5674. There's a chance this is instead an LAE with #5675. 
High confidence.
Doubtless.
High confidence.
Low confidence on everything. If the line's even real, the EW is not high enough to safely make this and LAE.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Medium uncertainty. The line might not even be real, and the spatial and spectral shapes are both funny. However, #1321 is the closest counterpart and would make this an LAE. The other possible counterpart, 1322, would also be an LAE by the EW cut.
High confidence.
I'm not taking the nearest counterpart here as I think it's spurious and the flux pattern makes sense for #1927 instead. This changes the classification to an [OII] emitter.
More spatial error than usual here, but since we find strong continuum in the spectra I have to suspect we're seeing counterpart #1615 as an [OII] emitter.