## 3 Research Methodology
Figure 2 illustrates the availability of RO Events (ROE) in the UCAR-COSMIC datasets throughout the study period. During the first 31 days, exclusive data from GN02 (2023.095 to DOY 2023.125) contributed to an average of approximately 700 ROE per day. Subsequently, the period from 2023.199 to 2023.243 sees combined data from GN02 and GN03, resulting in an average of around 2450 ROE per day. From DOY 2023.244 to DOY 2023.338, GN02 provides atmospheric data independently. Finally, GN02 and GN03 satellites collectively provide profiles for the remaining days of the year 2023. The COSMIC-UCAR datasets offer GFS and ECMWF profiles for comparison with PlanetiQ wetPrf files, aligned with observational data. The \"avnPrf\" represents the GFS NWP model file format, presenting atmospheric data in the NetCDF format akin to the \"wetPr2\" file. The temperature, pressure, and moisture profiles are derived from NCEP AVN 12-h forecast files, co-located with occultation profiles. These profiles serve as the initial estimate for determining moisture below 10 km in the real-time CDAAC process and facilitate comparison. Additionally, the \"echPrf\" stands as the ECMWF NWP model file format, providing atmosphere data in the same NetCDF format as the \"wetPf2\" and \"avnPrf\" files. In comparing PlanetQi with COSMIC profiles, the procedure entails selecting paired profiles by identifying two observations from each system that coincide in time, altitude, and location on Earth's surface. However, due to insufficient exact matches, profiles with differences of less than 1\({}^{\circ}\) in latitude and longitude and 1 h in time were selected as checkpoints for comparison with COSMIC data. These checkpoints are grouped into G1, G2, and G3 based on increasing disparities in time and location, facilitating a systematic assessment of data from both systems. Figure 2: PlanetiQ ROE number through study period DOYs based on LEO satellites. Regarding the comparison between PlanetQ and NWP models, NWP observations are selected at the same time and location as PlanetQ observations. This means that NWP data are extracted based on the determined time and location of PlanetQ observations, ensuring no deviations in time, location, or vertical altitude between the comparison endpoints. An intricate analysis is conducted utilizing Python and bash scripts on Ubuntu. All PlanetQ wetPf2 files were acquired from the COSMIC-UCAR website during the days of 2023. To juxtapose PlanetQ profiles with COSMIC constellation profiles, a meticulous comparison methodology is employed. This involves a singular profile comparison using two observations from distinct missions (one checkpoint) situated at the same location and time. Additionally, multiple observations from various missions, located within the same coordinates and temporal parameters (checkpoints), are considered, with a difference of 1\({}^{\circ}\) in latitude and longitude and 1 h in time. Each \"checkpoint\" entails discerning the disparities between two observations from PlanetQ and COSMIC, with a thorough analysis of spatial and temporal differences. To obtain checkpoints with minimal disparities, ten days of global COSMIC data are downloaded. To conduct a comprehensive assessment and comparison between the PlanetQ observations and the GFS and ECMWF NWP models, a systematic approach is adopted. Over 300 randomly selected daily checkpoints are employed for each of the 198 study days. This meticulous selection process enables the thorough examination and evaluation of disparities between individual PlanetQ observations and their counterparts in the GFS and ECMWF NWP models. The outcome is a detailed profile of differences across all checkpoints throughout the study period. The disparities between PlanetQ profiles and the corresponding profiles from COSMIC and NWP models are quantified and presented through various metrics, including mean diff. values, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), and mean diff.%.