diff --git a/Lab1.tex b/Lab1.tex
index cd7dbf9..29ee8c5 100644
--- a/Lab1.tex
+++ b/Lab1.tex
@@ -253,6 +253,9 @@ the three different signal types; in all three cases, we first used
 the oscilloscope to read the period and magnitude of the signal, and
 then used the DMM to measure the signal's RMS voltage.
 
+Note: our use of the oscilloscope for magnitude measurements will
+later be identified as a key source of error.
+
 \subsection{Experiment ~\ref{type:ac} (sinusoidal AC)}
 
 Given a read period of $T$ seconds, we calculate the frequency as
@@ -465,7 +468,27 @@ As for the second question:
   the DMM is showing the true RMS regardless of the waveform.
 \end{quote}
 
+We have arrived independently at RMS voltage values multiple ways, and
+have discovered that no waveform yields a particularly higher error
+for RMS voltage than any other; in fact, more specifically, the
+highest error values are associated only with our analytical
+derivation, which relies on an oscilloscope-derived magnitude reading.
 
+I'll review the oscilloscope-derived magnitude problem in a moment,
+but I wanted to finish my point abaout the suitability of the DMM to
+produce RMS voltage measurements: the lack of particularly high error
+values when comparing experimental (DMM) RMS values for any of our
+various waveforms indicates that the DMM's suitability does not,
+within reason, depend on the waveform it's measuring.
+
+As for our error: our largest cases of error are when comparing our
+experimental and numerical results to our analytical results for 2V
+square-wave AC. Despite setting the function generator to 2V, our
+oscilloscope nevertheless read a peak-to-peak magnitude of 4.22 and
+4.26V (so, a peak-magnitude 2.11V of 2.13V, respectively). This likely
+has to do with how the oscilloscope regisers peak-to-peak voltages,
+relying on hazy extremes; but also, notably, because we had our
+oscilloscope in 10X mode, reducing its signal sensitivity / resolution.
 
 \nocite{*}
 \printbibliography