diff --git a/submission_thesis/CH6_Evaluation/copy.tex b/submission_thesis/CH6_Evaluation/copy.tex
index 4589f84..965698e 100644
--- a/submission_thesis/CH6_Evaluation/copy.tex
+++ b/submission_thesis/CH6_Evaluation/copy.tex
@@ -462,8 +462,8 @@ We use these two analyses to compare the effect on comparison complexity (see ta
 \begin{tabular}{ |c|l|l|c| }
 \hline 
 \textbf{Hierarchy}   & \textbf{Derived}      & \textbf{Complexity} & $|fm(c)|$: \textbf{number}     \\
-\textbf{Level}       & \textbf{Component}    & \textbf{Comparison} & \textbf{of derived}                  \\
-                     &                       &                     & \textbf{failure modes}            \\
+\textbf{Level}       & \textbf{Component}    & \textbf{Comparison} & \textbf{of derived}            \\
+                     &                       &                     & \textbf{failure modes}    OK     \\
 %\hline \hline
 %\multicolumn{3}{ |c| }{Complexity Comparison against RFMEA for examples in Chapter~\ref{sec:chap5}} \\
 %\hline \hline
@@ -480,9 +480,12 @@ We use these two analyses to compare the effect on comparison complexity (see ta
 1 & INVAMP              & 16        & 3 \\
 0 & NIBUFF              & 0        & 4 \\
 %
+% final one has 8 components 3* NIBUFF +  1 * INVAMP + 4 * PHS45
+%                    (8-1) * ( (3*4) + (1*16) +    (4 *  4) )
+2 & BUBBA               & 308      & 2 \\
 %                                 NIBUFF  PHS45
 % 8 components so LEVEL 2 (8-1) \times ( (3*4) +  (4*2) + 3 ) + LEVEL 0 16 for the INVAMP
-2 & Total for BUBBA: &   177 (FMMD)  &   \\  
+2 & Total for BUBBA: &   328 (FMMD)  &   \\  
 %                               R&C     OPAMPS
 % 14 components so 13 \times ( (10*2)   (4*4) )
 0 & Total for BUBBA: &  468  (RFMEA) &   \\
@@ -516,7 +519,7 @@ We use these two analyses to compare the effect on comparison complexity (see ta
 \caption{Complexity Comparison figures for the Bubba Oscillator FMMD example (see section~\ref{sec:bubba}).}
 \end{table}
 %
-The initial {na\"{\i}ve} FMMD analysis reduces the number of checks by over half, the more de-composed analysis
+The initial {na\"{\i}ve} FMMD analysis reduces the number of checks by around a third, the more de-composed analysis
 by more than  a factor of ten.
 
 
@@ -525,6 +528,49 @@ by more than  a factor of ten.
 
 
 \label{sec:bubbaCC}
+
+\begin{table}
+ \label{tbl:bubbacc}
+
+
+\begin{tabular}{ |c|l|l|c| }
+\hline 
+\textbf{Hierarchy}   & \textbf{Derived}      & \textbf{Complexity} & $|fm(c)|$: \textbf{number}     \\
+\textbf{Level}       & \textbf{Component}    & \textbf{Comparison} & \textbf{of derived}            \\
+                     &                       &                     & \textbf{failure modes}    OK     \\
+%\hline \hline
+%\multicolumn{3}{ |c| }{Complexity Comparison against RFMEA for examples in Chapter~\ref{sec:chap5}} \\
+%\hline \hline
+
+
+%Goalkeeper & GK & Paul Robinson \\ \hline
+
+\hline
+
+\multicolumn{3}{ |c| }{{\sd} FMMD Hierarchy: section~\ref{sec:sigmadelta}} \\ \hline
+%\multirow{3}{*} {Inverting Amplifier Two stage FMMD Hierarchy: section~\ref{sec:invamp}}  & & \\
+\hline
+1 &              & 4        & 2 \\
+1 & INVAMP              & 16        & 3 \\
+0 & NIBUFF              & 0        & 4 \\
+%
+% final one has 8 components 3* NIBUFF +  1 * INVAMP + 4 * PHS45
+%                    (8-1) * ( (3*4) + (1*16) +    (4 *  4) )
+2 & {\sd}              & 308      & 2 \\
+%                                 NIBUFF  PHS45
+% 8 components so LEVEL 2 (8-1) \times ( (3*4) +  (4*2) + 3 ) + LEVEL 0 16 for the INVAMP
+2 & Total for {\sd}: &   328 (FMMD)  &   \\  
+%                               R&C     OPAMPS
+% 14 components so 13 \times ( (10*2)   (4*4) )
+0 & Total for {\sd}: &  468  (RFMEA) &   \\
+
+  \hline
+
+\end{tabular}
+\caption{Complexity Comparison figures for the Bubba Oscillator FMMD example (see section~\ref{sec:bubba}).}
+\end{table}
+
+
 % \subsection{Exponential squared to Exponential}
 % 
 % can I say that ?