We increased the strictness of the check prior to the public release.
Testing the pre-release software in private was a good idea, IMO. I just assumed when you released it, you had made no additional changes or you would have ran those by me first.
Thanks for the information. What kind of signal are you putting into CH1? We'll see if we can reproduce this behavior.
Interesting you ask as it means that you suspect the glitches are shape dependent. This doesn't give me a lot of comfort as I am always going to be questioning if what I am seeing is real or not. With that in mind, I do believe that the settings at least have something to do with it. Assuming that the software I downloaded last night is still the most recent 2.5.5, here are two images. I used the LiteVNA64 as the source (its normally sitting on the desk and makes a convenient source). It was set to 150MHz CW. Using the supplied cable attached directly to channel 1 of the GigaWave.
Notice if I set the Base to 1ns/div with 32pts/division, we see how unstable the start of the sweep is (below 12ns). If I change the Base to 2ns/div and 64pts/division (to achieve the same resolution), the displayed waveform is stable below 12ns. Again, without a min/max or some means to detect these glitches, I can't tell you if it never glitches.
You used the phrase "... small fraction of returned CDFs may have an error". I suspect our views on what a small fraction means, differ. Say for example I want to look at a noise free signal and there is nothing in the environment that can cause an discontinuity in the measurement. Everything is perfect but, we don't know that. Now the scope shows the signal has a glitch. Maybe it's once an hour. Maybe once a day. I'm sure many of us have hunted problems like these. This glitch problem IMO, is the biggest issue you have going. I'm sure it can be solved but I don't think spending time trying to filter it is a good solution, or use of your time.