The classification is secure by EW, but the association is uncertain. 4191 is only a ~2 sigma detection is each of 3 bands, so there may also just be no counterpart.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Junk. Low EW continuum feature. A no name feature for a z~0 star or galaxy around 4600.
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 obvious sense with each other. The second line, entry 7, is very broad but appears to be real. The associations here are not certain and the photometry is very blended. I nominally call this [OII] for #6595 to be cross-listed with 7 as [NeIII]3869.
See entry 7. This is low certainty on association, but is certainly low-z if even real. The line's very broad and suspicious. Although it's a little off in wavelength, it's plausible to be [NeIII]3869 to be cross-listed with 6. 
A nice, isolated LAE likely to be with #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.
High confidence on association, low confidence on classification. The EW is very borderline, and the interpolation is kicked by one screwy datapoint. The SED is strongly prohibitive of an LAE.
High confidence on classification, low confidence on association. 6281 is the closer and preferred counterpart, but it's a very borderline imaging detection. 6179 is more off center and also possible.
High confidence. The EW is very borderline, but the interpolation seems to be bad again. The SED continuum based EW wouldn't make it an LAE. Also is too bright R=22.03
Doubtless. Broad line profile suggests an AGN. No obvious CIV. No literature match. No XMM counterpart.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless. This is [OII] to be cross-listed with 18 as Hbeta, 19 as [OII]4959, and 20 as [OII]5007. 
High confidence on classification, low confidence on association. Could be either #5003 or 5004 as the counterpart. 
This is Hbeta, to be cross-listed with 16 as [OII], 19 as [OII]4959, and 20 as [OII]5007. 
This is [OII]4959, to be cross-listed with 16 as [OII], 18 as Hbeta, and 20 as [OII]5007. 
This is [OII]5007, to be cross-listed with 16 as [OII], 18 as Hbeta, and 19 as [OII]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. 
Doubtless. This is [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 24 as [OII], 29 as Hgamma, 30 as Hbeta, and 31 as [OIII]4959. 
Junk. Low EW continuum structure. Might be a line I can't identify, like [NeIII]3869 against the noisy absorption lines. I think this might just be the hump blueward of CaK.
This is [OII] to be cross-listed with 22 as [OIII]5007, 29 as Hgamma, 30 as Hbeta, and 31 as [OIII]4959. 
Junk. Low EW continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW continuum structure. Part of this is probably [NeIII]3869.
Junk. Low EW continuum structure.
This is Hgamma to be cross-listed with 22 as [OIII]5007, 24 as [OII], 30 as Hbeta, and 31 as [OIII]4959. 
This is Hbeta to be cross-listed with 22 as [OIII]5007, 24 as [OII], 29 as Hgamma, and 31 as [OIII]4959. 
This is [OIII]4959 to be cross-listed with 22 as [OIII]5007, 24 as [OII], 29 as Hgamma, and 30 as Hbeta. 
Junk. Low EW continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW continuum structure.
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. Just over the EW cut, but the SED is strongly prohibitive.
Junk. Low EW continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW continuum structure.
High confidence.
Only low confidence that the object's real based on line profile, but if it is the counterpart is clear. Just barely over the EW cut and not sure on classification, but the SED based EW would further imply an LAE.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Junk. Low EW continuum structure.
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.
Doubtless.
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.
Junk. Low EW continuum structure.
Likely junk. Low EW continuum structure.
Junk. I think a satellite went through one frame and a cosmic ray another, although the usual satellite streak is not present. This is very confusing, I'll admit, but it looks like it's just a normal solar spectrum in two fibers for one exposure.
Junk. I think a satellite went through one frame and a cosmic ray another.
Doubtless.
This is a very uncertain object, although I'm giving my best guess at [OII] from 7505. The high-z SED is disfavored mainly by the z and u bands. The object also looks suspiciously extended. However, it would make the usual EW cut, but just barely. It also depends on which bands we use for the interpolation or if we use the SED for the EW, in which is always dances around the cut. 
Doubtless. Known Xray source, but new redshift. There are several broad lines here that don't fit our usual template patterns. I believe the detected line is CIV1549 with SiIV/OIV1400 and CIII]1909 showing and maybe OIII]1663. There's a cross-listing with 59 as CIII]1909.
Doubtless.
Doubtless on classification, high confidence on association. The counterpart 7820 is most likely, although other limit straddling imaging detections are also possible that would all be LAEs too.
This is CIII]1909 to be cross-listed with 56 as CIV1549.