Re-evaluate including the Mohn's Rho on the retrospective figures

[chantelwetzel-noaa]

The black rockfish STAR panel had a lot of discussion about whether we should be showing the Mohn's Rho for each data peel. I believe the values included on the figure are cumulative up to that data peel year, but this was not clear to the reviewers. Additionally, there was concern over the Mohn's Rho value being shown rather than the value based on the NEFSC or AFSC approach. We should decide if we should only show the final Mohn's Rho for the largest data peel and if so which value should be added by default. Additionally, we could add an option for users to select the calculation to show.

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

The values are cumulative.

I would say there is no right answer here as to what we should do. The key thing is that whatever we do decide, that it is communicated to users. I dont think we can ever avoid the situation where some reviewer may dislike what we do, especially in differences of opinions.

Personally I like seeing all the values for each year, because the original (as well as the average) Mohn's rho value depends on the number of peals applied and highlights where a choice in the number of peels may matter. Its easy enough to then take the value and divide (or multiple) by the number of peels to come up with the average (or original) rho value.

If we decide to keep all years, we can make it more clear in the documentation of retro_wrapper that the values in the figure are cumulative. We could also add the word "cumulative mohn's rho" or "Mohn's rho up to year 1" within the figure legend itself to make it more clear. Alternatively, I am ok with just doing the terminal year mohn's rho value so as to avoid confusion (but that is not my preference). Using cumulative makes more sense for the original Mohn's rho, whereas doing a cumulative approach for the AFSC version (mohn's rho averaged over the number of peels) is a little less intuitive.

As for what we do by default, to me it doesn't matter too much, the key is in communicating what the value is to the user. The current standard according to Miller and Legault (2017) is to use the AFSC approach. This makes comparisons with the threshold described in Hurtado et al. (2015) easier. I like the idea of adding an option for users to specify which type of mohn's rho is desired - and think the AFSC approach is best as the default from a coding standpoint (personally I like the original better though). Right now we use the original Mohn's rho as the default.

Thus to conclude

1. I prefer adding the value for all years and using the original Mohn's rho value.
2. Adding "...up to year X" onto the figure would seem to resolve confusion over whether its a year by year or cumulative value, but so would using the last peel year value
3. From a development standpoint the AFSC mohn's rho is the standard approach and so should be the default, but I like the idea of adding an option for the user to choose.