measured $H\alpha$ (i.e. they identified two different lines as $H\alpha$), the one with the best $\chi^2$ is taken.

(iv) 4 = Redshift disagreement within $1\sigma$ errors and neither reviewer identified multiple high S/N lines nor $H\alpha$; adopted redshift taken as the case with the best $\chi^2$.

(v) 8 = Redshift based on a single line.

(vi) 16 = Only one reviewer identified object.

In rare cases where both redshift errors are zero, the redshifts are considered to be in agreement if the per cent difference in redshift is <1 per cent.

`FWHM_FLAG` contains a sum of five flag bits:

(i) 0 = FWHM agreement within $1\sigma$ errors.

(ii) 1 = Reported FWHM is larger than $2 \times A\_IMAGE$.

(iii) 2 = One or more measurements had $\sigma_{FWHM} = 0$. This occurs when the FWHM bumps up against either the upper or lower bounding constraints set on the model fit.

(iv) 4 = FWHM disagreement within $1\sigma$ errors; reported FWHM is from best $\chi^2$ fit to full spectrum.

(v) 8 = Reported FWHM is based on measurement from only one reviewer. This either indicates there was redshift disagreement, in which case the reported FWHM is from the best $\chi^2$ fit to full spectrum, or only one reviewer accepted the object.

`[LINE]_FLAG` contains a sum of six flag bits:

(i) 0 = Line flux and EW agreement within $1\sigma$ errors.

(ii) 1 = EW disagreement within $1\sigma$ errors; reported EW is from best $\chi^2$ fit to full spectrum.

(iii) 2 = Flux disagreement within $1\sigma$ errors; reported flux is from best $\chi^2$ fit to full spectrum.

(iv) 4 = Only one reviewer measured flux. The other reviewer has line masked or outside coverage. Alternatively, due to redshift disagreement, all line measurements are from one reviewer.

(v) 8 = Flux limits reported for line.

(vi) 16 = No measurement for line; masked or outside of wavelength coverage

`[LINE]_CONTAM` contains a sum of four flag bits:

(i) 0 = Uncontaminated.

(ii) 1 = Reviewer marked general contamination.

(iii) 2 = Reviewer marked continuum contaminated. May affect emission-line fit and therefore flux measurement.

(iv) 4 = Reviewer marked emission line contaminated.

`[LINE]_EDGE_FLAG` contains a sum of four flag bits:

(i) 0 = Emission line is away from grism edges.

(ii) 1 = Emission line is at $\lambda_{obs} \le 8500 \AA$.

(iii) 2 = Emission line is at $\lambda_{obs} \ge 16750 \AA$.

(iv) 4 = Emission line is in grism overlap region, $10\,900 \le \lambda_{obs} \le 11\,500 \AA$.

<footnote n="1">¹Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Cotter Road, Weston Creek, ACT 2611, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Department of Astronomy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Dr, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶INAF - Istituto di Radioastronomia, Via Gobetti 101, I-40129 Bologna, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Italian ALMA Regional Centre, Via Gobetti 101, I-40129 Bologna, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Chinese Academy of Sciences South America Center for Astronomy (CAS-SACA), National Astronomical Observatories of China (NAOC), 20A Datun Road, Beijing, 100012, China</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, 98bis Boulevard Arago, F-75014, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰IPAC, California Institute of Technology, 1200 E. California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Department of Physics and Astronomy University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³Minnesota Institute for Astrophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92521, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, VIC, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford OX13RH, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷Astrophysics Science Division, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt Rd, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸Minnesota State University-Mankato, Telescope Science Institute, TN141, Mankato, MN 56001, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹School of Astronomy and Space Science, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (UCAS), Beijing 100049, China</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹Institute for Frontiers in Astronomy and Astrophysics, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 102206, China</footnote>

<footnote>This paper has been typeset from a `T\_EX/L\_T\_EX` file prepared by the author.</footnote>
measured $H\alpha$ (i.e. they identified two different lines as $H\alpha$), the one with the best $\chi^2$ is taken.

(iv) 4 = Redshift disagreement within $1\sigma$ errors and neither reviewer identified multiple high S/N lines nor $H\alpha$; adopted redshift taken as the case with the best $\chi^2$.

(v) 8 = Redshift based on a single line.

(vi) 16 = Only one reviewer identified object.

In rare cases where both redshift errors are zero, the redshifts are considered to be in agreement if the per cent difference in redshift is <1 per cent.

`FWHM_FLAG` contains a sum of five flag bits:

(i) 0 = FWHM agreement within $1\sigma$ errors.

(ii) 1 = Reported FWHM is larger than $2 \times A\_IMAGE$.

(iii) 2 = One or more measurements had $\sigma_{FWHM} = 0$. This occurs when the FWHM bumps up against either the upper or lower bounding constraints set on the model fit.

(iv) 4 = FWHM disagreement within $1\sigma$ errors; reported FWHM is from best $\chi^2$ fit to full spectrum.

(v) 8 = Reported FWHM is based on measurement from only one reviewer. This either indicates there was redshift disagreement, in which case the reported FWHM is from the best $\chi^2$ fit to full spectrum, or only one reviewer accepted the object.

`[LINE]_FLAG` contains a sum of six flag bits:

(i) 0 = Line flux and EW agreement within $1\sigma$ errors.

(ii) 1 = EW disagreement within $1\sigma$ errors; reported EW is from best $\chi^2$ fit to full spectrum.

(iii) 2 = Flux disagreement within $1\sigma$ errors; reported flux is from best $\chi^2$ fit to full spectrum.

(iv) 4 = Only one reviewer measured flux. The other reviewer has line masked or outside coverage. Alternatively, due to redshift disagreement, all line measurements are from one reviewer.

(v) 8 = Flux limits reported for line.

(vi) 16 = No measurement for line; masked or outside of wavelength coverage

`[LINE]_CONTAM` contains a sum of four flag bits:

(i) 0 = Uncontaminated.

(ii) 1 = Reviewer marked general contamination.

(iii) 2 = Reviewer marked continuum contaminated. May affect emission-line fit and therefore flux measurement.

(iv) 4 = Reviewer marked emission line contaminated.

`[LINE]_EDGE_FLAG` contains a sum of four flag bits:

(i) 0 = Emission line is away from grism edges.

(ii) 1 = Emission line is at $\lambda_{obs} \le 8500 \AA$.

(iii) 2 = Emission line is at $\lambda_{obs} \ge 16750 \AA$.

(iv) 4 = Emission line is in grism overlap region, $10\,900 \le \lambda_{obs} \le 11\,500 \AA$.

<footnote n="1">¹Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Cotter Road, Weston Creek, ACT 2611, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Department of Astronomy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Dr, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶INAF - Istituto di Radioastronomia, Via Gobetti 101, I-40129 Bologna, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Italian ALMA Regional Centre, Via Gobetti 101, I-40129 Bologna, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Chinese Academy of Sciences South America Center for Astronomy (CAS-SACA), National Astronomical Observatories of China (NAOC), 20A Datun Road, Beijing, 100012, China</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, 98bis Boulevard Arago, F-75014, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰IPAC, California Institute of Technology, 1200 E. California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Department of Physics and Astronomy University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³Minnesota Institute for Astrophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92521, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, VIC, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford OX13RH, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷Astrophysics Science Division, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt Rd, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸Minnesota State University-Mankato, Telescope Science Institute, TN141, Mankato, MN 56001, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹School of Astronomy and Space Science, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (UCAS), Beijing 100049, China</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹Institute for Frontiers in Astronomy and Astrophysics, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 102206, China</footnote>

<footnote>This paper has been typeset from a `T\_EX/L\_T\_EX` file prepared by the author.</footnote>