[brief] [...] groups these errors into one category and claims they can only be corrected by the Court if they are “simple arithmetical errors, such as $2 + 2 = 5$, or obvious mistakes in identification. ”  Opp. at 33, 35 (citing Tretina, 135 N.J. at 359).  This dicta from Tretina, however, is found in that Court’s discussion of the dissenting opinion in which the dissenting Justice opined that the Court should remand the matter to the arbitrator to fix an ambiguity in the calculation of the award.  Tretina, 135 N.J. at 360.  A majority of the Court disagreed, finding that the alleged issue with the award was the omission of a party’s claim and not a math error, rejecting the request for modification outright.  Id.  The Court explained that even if the award contained an error, it should not be remanded to an arbitrator because the Court is empowered to correct “mistakes that are obvious and simple—errors that can be fixed without a remand and without the services of an experienced arbitrator. ”  Id. at 360.  This language, however, did not create a new standard for modification of arbitration awards, and the Tretina Court did not hold that the only mistakes that justify modification to an award must be “obvious and simple. ”  Opp. at 33.  Such a conclusion would mean an award that contains an obvious but more complicated mistake must be confirmed, which is an absurd result.  Instead, if this Court determines the errors in the Award are too complicated to fix on its own, it should vacate the Award and allow the parties to resolve the dispute pursuant to their dispute resolution procedure.  In any event, the mistakes made by the Arbitrator are obvious and simple mathematical or transcription errors that do not require the reevaluation of evidence in order to correct.  [...] provided the corrected calculations of interest in Tabs 1 and 2 of its Alternative Calculations.  Da475, Da477.  Correctly applying mathematical operations (PEMDAS: parentheses, exponents, multiplication and division, and addition and subtraction) is not a “method” of calculating interest, and mistakes in the order of operations are computational errors that can be easily corrected by the Court.  Similarly, the Court can easily correct the EGPs awarded for the [...] and [...] projects by using the figures which appear in those projects’ construction contracts.  Da463, Da400.  As for the most obvious mistake regarding the transcription of EGPs into the Award, the Arbitrator clearly stated the documents upon which he was relying to derive those figures (the Financial Reportings) but then either did not include those figures in the Award or included figures for projects that did not appear in those documents (like the [...] project).  Da137-138.  The corrections that need to be made to the Arbitrator’s EGP determinations do not require this Court to re-evaluate any evidence; the Court must only observe the numbers contained in the documents the Arbitrator explicitly incorporated into the Award [Da291-345] and update the values in the Award to reflect the values that appear on those documents (and reduce the EGP to 0 for projects that do not appear on those documents).  These errors—based in math or transcription from one document to another—do not require a re-evaluation of the evidence.  Rather, they can be easily corrected by simply updating the values in the Award to reflect the values actually stated in the record.  POINT IV