diff --git a/symptom_ex_process/algorithm.tex b/symptom_ex_process/algorithm.tex
index f04e4af..a06c74b 100644
--- a/symptom_ex_process/algorithm.tex
+++ b/symptom_ex_process/algorithm.tex
@@ -157,36 +157,73 @@ $$ dtc(F) = TC $$
    \COMMENT { Each set $tc_j$ is a `test case' }
    %\STATE   { $ \forall j \in J  |  tc_j \in TC $ } \COMMENT {Ensure the test cases are complete and unique}
 
+   \STATE { $ TC := \emptyset $ } \COMMENT{Initialise set of test cases}
+   \STATE { $ j := 1 $ } \COMMENT{Initialise index of test cases}
+
+   \FORALL { $ f \in F $ }
+	\STATE{$ tc_j := f $} \COMMENT{ Assign one test case per single fault mode }
+        \STATE{ $ j := j + 1 $} 
+   \ENDFOR 
+
+   \STATE { Let $ptc$ be a provisional test case } \COMMENT{ Determine Test cases with simultaneous failure modes }
+     
+   \IF{DoubleFaultChecking} 
+
+   \STATE { Let $ptc$ be a provisional test case }
+   \FORALL { $ f1,f2 \in F $ }
+	\STATE { $ ptc := \{ f1,f2 \} $ } \COMMENT{Make a provisional test case}
+	%\STATE { FINDING ERRORS IN LATEX SOURCE IS FUCKING ANNOYING}
+	%% OK maybe you can't have comments after IF: half an hour wasted...
+	\IF { $ \mathcal{ISUNITARYSTATE}(ptc) $ } % \COMMENT{Ensure the chosen failure mode set is unitary state compliant}
+           \STATE{ $ j := j + 1 $} % latex bug hunt game what fun ! #2 
+           \STATE { $ tc_j := ptc $}
+	   \STATE { $ TC := TC \cup tc_j $ }
+	\ENDIF
+   \ENDFOR
+ \ENDIF
+ 
+
+
+
+
+   \FORALL { $ ptc \in \mathcal{P}(F) $ } %%\mathcal{P} F $ }
+	%%\STATE { $ ptc \in \mathcal{P} F $ } \COMMENT{Make a provisional test case}
+	\IF { $\mathcal{CHOSEN}(ptc) \wedge ptc \not\in TC  \wedge  \mathcal{ISUNITARYSTATE}(ptc)$ } %%% \COMMENT{IF this combination of faults is chosen as an additional Test case include it in TC}
+           \STATE{ $ j := j + 1 $}  % latex bug hunt game #1
+           \STATE { $ tc_j := ptc $}
+	   \STATE { $ TC := TC \cup tc_j $ }
+	\ENDIF
+   \ENDFOR
+
    \FORALL { $tc_j \in TC$ }
      %\ENSURE   {$ tc_j  \in \bigcap FG_{cfm} $}
-     \ENSURE   {$ tc_j  \in \mathcal{P}(F)$} 
+     \ENSURE   {$ tc_j  \in \mathcal{P}(F) $ } % \mathcal{P}(F)$} 
      \COMMENT { require that the test case is a member of the powerset of $F$ }
      %\ENSURE { $ \forall \; j2 \; \in J ( \forall \; j1 \; \in J | tc_{j1} \neq tc_{j2} \; \wedge \; j1 \neq j2 ) $}
      \ENSURE { $\forall j1,j2 \in J \; such\; that\; tc_{j1} \neq tc_{j2} \; \wedge \; j1 \neq j2 $}
      \COMMENT { Test cases must be unique } 
    \ENDFOR 
-
- 
-   \IF{Single fault checking} 
-   \STATE { let $f$ represent a component failure mode }
-   %\ENSURE { That all failure modes are represented in at least one test case }
-   \ENSURE { $ \forall f \;such\;that\; (f \in F))    \wedge  (f \in \bigcup TC) $ }
-   \COMMENT { This corresponds to checking that at least each failure mode is considered at 
-              least once in the analysis; more rigorous cardinality constraint
-              checks may be required for some safety standards}
-   \ENDIF
-
-   \IF{Double fault checking} 
-   \STATE { let $f1,f2$ represent component failure modes, and $c$ any component in the functional group }
-   %\ENSURE { That all failure modes are represented in at least one test case }
-   \ENSURE { $ \forall f1,f2 \;where\; (f1,f2) \not\in c\;such\;that\; (f1,f2 \in F))    \wedge  ( \{f1,f2\} \in \bigcup TC) $ }
-   \COMMENT { This corresponds to checking that each possible double failure mode is considered  
-              as a test case; more rigorous cardinality constraint
-              checks may be required for some safety standards. Note if both failure modes
-              in the check are sourced from the same component $c$, the test case is impossible
-              under unitary state failure mode conditions}
-   \ENDIF
-
+% 
+%   \IF{Single fault checking} 
+%   \STATE { let $f$ represent a component failure mode }
+%   %\ENSURE { That all failure modes are represented in at least one test case }
+%   \ENSURE { $ \forall f \;such\;that\; (f \in F))    \wedge  (f \in \bigcup TC) $ }
+%   \COMMENT { This corresponds to checking that at least each failure mode is considered at 
+%              least once in the analysis; more rigorous cardinality constraint
+%              checks may be required for some safety standards}
+%   \ENDIF
+%
+%   \IF{Double fault checking} 
+%   \STATE { let $f1,f2$ represent component failure modes, and $c$ any component in the functional group }
+%   %\ENSURE { That all failure modes are represented in at least one test case }
+%   \ENSURE { $ \forall f1,f2 \;where\; (f1,f2) \not\in c\;such\;that\; (f1,f2 \in F))    \wedge  ( \{f1,f2\} \in \bigcup TC) $ }
+%   \COMMENT { This corresponds to checking that each possible double failure mode is considered  
+%              as a test case; more rigorous cardinality constraint
+%              checks may be required for some safety standards. Note if both failure modes
+%              in the check are sourced from the same component $c$, the test case is impossible
+%              under unitary state failure mode conditions}
+%   \ENDIF
+%
    \RETURN $TC$
 % some european standards
 %                imply checking all double fault combinations\cite{en298} }