Hi @Jeremy Muhlich, I just left a comment with a clarification on the github thread that matches back to the execution stream discussion from before. • Regarding the publishDir path names, I think having the default way of naming as you said is fine. • For the execution stream discussion, we were thinking that in the same way as for segmentation, for broader steps that allow for multiple options (e.g. staging, and even registration down the line), the step itself is tagged, and then the step_method (e.g. staging_method). And for parameters, mixing process names with the step names might be confusing for users. • Since Backsub is duplicating data in a way, I would agree we could have an option to not publish the ashlar output - but maybe let's see how use cases evolve. -- Additionally, AF correction as implemented in backsub might overcompensate in some technologies in later cycles, and seeing the registered image itself can be useful (although our usecase for these has been pre-stitched always).