 matrices reported in each of these tables perhaps require a little more explanation. Firstly, we should point out that the diagonals are zero by construction. We found that the reduced $\chi^2$ ($\chi^2_{\rm r}
= \chi^2 / (n_{\rm d}-1)$, where $n_{\rm d}$ is the global number of data being treated and we are considering the estimate of a single parameter, namely CMB distortion or CIB amplitude), is always extremely close to unity, which is an obvious validation cross-check. Note that, in principle, when potential residuals are included, one should specify the variance pixel-by-pixel in the estimation of $\chi^2$.[^18] This requires a precise local characterization of residuals. While this can easily be included by construction in our analyses, we explicitly avoid implementing this in the $\chi^2$ analysis, but instead perform our forecasts assuming knowledge of only the average level of the residuals in the sky region being considered. Secondly, we note that the matrices are not perfectly symmetric, due to the cross-terms in the squares (from noise and signal) entering into the $\chi^2$. Thirdly, the off-diagonal terms are sometimes negative, but with absolute values compatible with the quoted rms. These second and third effects are clearly statistical in nature.

The results found in this section (see also Appendix \[ideal\_highres\]) identify the ideal sensitivity target for CMB spectral distortion parameters and CIB amplitude that are achievable from the dipole frequency behaviour.

Elements[^19] (2:4, 2:4) of the matrix quantify the sensitivity to the CIB amplitude. Comparison with FIRAS in terms of the $\sigma$ level of significance can be extracted directly from the tables; the ideal improvement ranges from a factor of about 1000 to 4000.

The ideal improvement found for CMB spectral distortion parameters is also impressive. Elements (1, 5:10) and (5:10, 1) and elements (1, 11:12) and (11:12, 1) refer to comparisons between the blackbody and BE and Comptonization distortions, respectively. The comparison with FIRAS is simply quoted by the element of the matrix of the table multiplied by the ratio between the FIRAS $1\,\sigma$ upper limit on $\mu_0$ or $u$ and the distortion parameter value considered in the table. The sensitivity on $u$ is clearly enough to disentangle between minimal models of reionization
matrices reported in each of these tables perhaps command a short more explanation. Firstly, we should point out that the diagonals are zero by structure. We found that the reduced $ \chi^2 $ ($ \chi^2_{\rm r } 
 = \chi^2 / (n_{\rm d}-1)$, where $ n_{\rm d}$ is the ball-shaped issue of data being treat and we are considering the estimate of a individual parameter, namely CMB distortion or CIB amplitude), is constantly extremely close to unity, which is an obvious validation cross - assay. Note that, in principle, when potential residual are included, one should specify the variance pixel - by - pixel in the estimation of $ \chi^2$.[^18 ] This necessitate a precise local characterization of residuals. While this can easily be included by structure in our analyses, we explicitly avoid implementing this in the $ \chi^2 $ analysis, but instead perform our prognosis wear knowledge of only the average level of the residuals in the sky region being considered. Secondly, we note that the matrix are not perfectly symmetric, due to the hybridization - terms in the squares (from noise and signal) entering into the $ \chi^2$. third, the off - aslant terms are sometimes negative, but with absolute values compatible with the quote rms. These second and third effects are clearly statistical in nature. 

 The results found in this section (see also Appendix   \[ideal\_highres\ ]) identify the ideal sensitivity target for CMB spectral distortion argument and CIB amplitude that are achievable from the dipole frequency behavior. 

 Elements[^19 ] (2:4, 2:4) of the matrix quantify the sensitivity to the CIB amplitude. Comparison with FIRAS in terms of the $ \sigma$ level of significance can be extracted directly from the table; the ideal improvement ranges from a factor of about 1000 to 4000. 

 The ideal improvement found for CMB spectral distortion parameters is also impressive. element (1, 5:10) and (5:10, 1) and elements (1, 11:12) and (11:12, 1) consult to comparisons between the blackbody and beryllium and Comptonization distortions, respectively. The comparison with FIRAS is simply quoted by the element of the matrix of the mesa multiplied by the proportion between the FIRAS $ 1\,\sigma$ upper limit on $ \mu_0 $ or $ u$ and the distortion parameter value view in the table. The sensitivity on $ u$ is clearly enough to disentangle between minimal models of reionization
 mahrices reported in each uf these tables perhapv requjre a ligtle more explanation. Firstlb, we shouod point out that the aiagonals are zeri by xonstruction. We fomud thzb the ceduced $\chi^2$ ($\chi^2_{\tm r}
= \chi^2 / (n_{\rk d}-1)$, where $n_{\rm g}$ ks the global number of data being trqated amd we are considgring ehe sstimate of a single parameter, namsly CMB distortion ot CIB amplitude), is always fxtrfmely close to unihy, which is an jvvious validxtion cross-check. Note jhat, in principle, when potential resibuals are ibcoudfg, one shoulv specpfy the variakbe pixen-by-pixek in the estimstimn if $\chi^2$.[^18] This requires e precise local charwcterizathou of residuals. While rhus cat eavily ve kncmuved by cojstcuction in kur analysew, we explicitly avood pkplementing fhis ig ehe $\chi^2$ analysis, but instead perform oug fodecasts assuming knowleege of only the averahe level jf the residuals in the sky region being considerad. Serovdlv, we nure that the matrices are not perfectly symmetris, die to the cross-tcrms in the squarex (vrpi noise and skgnal) zhtsring into the $\chi^2$. Thirdli, the iff-diagonwl trrms are sometimes negative, but with abfilute values compacible with tke quojed rmx. These second and thirb effedts are clewrly statjrtical in nature.

Ghe rasults found in this sectijn (see alwo A'pendix \[iaeal\_nighref\]) identify the lgeal sensitivity twrget fmr CMB speftral distortion parameters and CIB amplitude tvat are achnevablc from the dipoje frequency bghaviour.

Ejemengs[^19] (2:4, 2:4) of thv matrix xuantify thq sensitivity jo the CIB am'litude. Cjmpaeisob with WKRAS in terms pf the $\siyia$ lwvel of significange cav be extracted dnxextly from the tsblds; ehv iveal ykprovement rdnger ffpm a wactor of anoug 1000 tp 4000.

The ideal improvemant round for CMB specyrwl distottion parwmeters is alxo impressive. Elemtnts (1, 5:10) anv (5:10, 1) anc ejements (1, 11:12) and (11:12, 1) refer to compadisons behwecn the blackbjdy qnd BE and Cpmptonization distortions, respectively. Vhe comparison with FITAS is simply quoted yy the elemenv of tre matrix of the table multipoied by the ratio between the FIRAS $1\,\sifma$ up[er llmit on $\mu_0$ or $u$ and the distortion parameter value considered in the tablw. The sensitivity kn $u$ is cnecrlv enougr to visentangle betwevn minimal models of reionizatioi
matrices reported in each of these tables a more explanation. we should point zero construction. We found the reduced $\chi^2$ r} = \chi^2 / (n_{\rm d}-1)$, $n_{\rm d}$ is the global number of data being treated and we are the estimate of a single parameter, namely CMB distortion or CIB amplitude), is extremely to which an obvious validation cross-check. Note that, in principle, when potential residuals are included, one should specify variance pixel-by-pixel in the estimation of $\chi^2$.[^18] This a precise local characterization residuals. While this can easily included construction in analyses, explicitly implementing this in $\chi^2$ analysis, but instead perform our forecasts assuming knowledge of only the average level of the residuals the sky considered. Secondly, note the are not perfectly to the cross-terms in the squares signal) entering into the $\chi^2$. Thirdly, the off-diagonal are sometimes but with absolute values compatible with quoted rms. These second and third effects are statistical in nature. The results found in this section (see also Appendix \[ideal\_highres\]) identify the target for CMB spectral parameters and CIB that achievable the frequency behaviour. (2:4, 2:4) of the matrix quantify the sensitivity to the CIB Comparison with FIRAS in terms of the $\sigma$ level of be directly from the the ideal improvement ranges a of about 1000 to ideal found distortion is impressive. Elements (1, 5:10) (5:10, 1) and elements (1, and (11:12, 1) refer and BE and Comptonization distortions, respectively. The comparison FIRAS is simply quoted by the element the matrix of the table multiplied by the ratio between the FIRAS upper limit or $u$ and the distortion parameter value considered the table. The sensitivity $u$ is clearly enough to disentangle between minimal models reionization
 matrices reported in each of tHese tables PerhaPs rEquIrE a liTtle More explanatioN. firsTly, we should point out thaT the dIaGOnalS ArE zero By constRUcTIOn. WE fOuNd tHaT ThE reduCed $\Chi^2$ ($\chi^2_{\rM r}
= \chi^2 / (n_{\rm d}-1)$, wHerE $n_{\Rm d}$ is the globAL nUmber of datA beIng treated anD we Are conSiDerINg the EstImate Of a sinGLe paraMeter, nameLy cmB distORtion or cib aMpliTude), is always extreMElY Close to unity, whIch is aN oBViOUS vaLidAtion cross-ChEck. NoTE that, in PRiNCIPle, WHen potential rEsiduals are INclUded, onE sHouLD speciFy the VaRIanCe pixel-by-piXel iN the estimAtion oF $\Chi^2$.[^18] This REquires A preciSe lOcaL chaRAcTeRizAtIOn oF ReSidUAls. while thiS cAn EasilY be iNCLUDed bY coNstrUctioN in our analyseS, we ExplICitLy avoId impLemeNtIng thIs in thE $\chi^2$ aNaLysis, but instead PerfOrm our forEcaStS asSuMing kNOwledgE of OnlY the aveRage levEL of ThE RESiDuals in the sky regioN bEINg ConsiderEd. SecoNDlY, wE Note that ThE maTricES Are noT perFEcTly symmeTric, duE To ThE cross-tErMs in thE sQuaRes (From nOIse aNd signAl) enteriNg intO The $\chi^2$. Thirdly, tHE off-diagonal tERmS ARe SOmetImeS negative, buT witH AbsoLute VAlUes COmpatIble wItH ThE Quoted rms. These seconD aNd thirD effeCts are clearly StatisticaL IN Nature.

ThE resULtS Found in this secTion (sEe also AppeNDix \[ideal\_HighrEs\]) identiFy the ideaL SEnsitiviTy tArgEt fOr Cmb SpEctral distortION parAmEters anD CIb amplitUde ThaT arE acHiEvable froM the dipoLe FrEqUeNcy BehavIOur.

ElemeNtS[^19] (2:4, 2:4) of ThE maTrix qUAntify The seNsitIvItY To tHe CIB amPLiTUDe. CoMpArIson WitH FiRAS iN terMS of The $\sigmA$ level of sIgnIFicaNcE cAn be extRacted directlY fRom the tablEs; The Ideal iMPRovement Ranges from a factor of abouT 1000 To 4000.

The idEal ImproVemeNt found foR CMb spectRal DIstortIon parAmeteRs Is aLSO imprESSiVe. ELeMents (1, 5:10) and (5:10, 1) anD ELemEnts (1, 11:12) aNd (11:12, 1) RefeR to compArisons between the bLAckBody and BE and COmpToniZATiOn dIStORtiOnS, ResPECtively. The compaRison with FiRas iS simply quoTEd bY tHe elemeNt of the MatriX Of the taBle multipLied by the RaTio bETWeeN the FIRAS $1\,\sIgma$ uppeR limit on $\mU_0$ Or $u$ anD ThE distOrtIon parAmEteR valuE consiDEreD in thE table. thE sensiTivitY oN $u$ is cleaRly enough to disentangle bEtween MinimAl mOdels of reIonIZatIon
 matrices reported in each  of thesetable s p erh ap s re quir e a little mor e  exp lanation. Firstly, weshoul dp oint ou t tha t the d i ag o n als  a re  ze ro by  cons tru ction.We found t hat  t he reduced $ \ ch i^2$ ($\ch i^2 _{\rm r}
= \ chi ^2 / ( n_ {\r m  d}-1 )$,  wher e $n_{ \ rm d}$  is the g lo b al num b er of d a t abein g treated and wea re considering th e esti ma t eo f  asin gle parame te r, na m ely CMB di s t o rti o n or CIB ampl itude), isa lwa ys ext re mel y  close  to u ni t y,which is an  obv ious vali dation cross-c h eck. No te tha t,inprin c ip le , w he n  po t en tia l  re sidualsar einclu ded, o n e  sho uld  spe cifythe variancepix el-b y -pi xel i n the  est im ation  of $\ chi^2 $. [^18] This requ ires  a precis e l oc alch aract e rizati onofresidua ls. Whi l e t hi s c an  easily be include db y  c onstruct ion in ou ra nalyses,  w e e xpli c i tly a void im plementi ng thi s  i nthe $\c hi ^2$ an al ysi s,but i n stea d perf orm ourforec a sts assuming k n owledge of on l yt h ea vera gelevel of th e re s idua ls i n  t hes ky re gionbe i ng considered. Secondl y,  we no te th at the matric es are not p e rfectlysymm e tr i c, due to thecross -terms int he squar es (f rom nois e and sig n a l) enter ing  in tothe $ \c hi^2$. Thirdl y ,  the  o ff-diag ona l terms  ar e s ome tim es  negative , but wi th  a bs ol ute  valu e s compat ib lewi ththe q u oted r ms. T hese  s ec o ndand thi r de f fect sar e cl ear ly  stat isti c alin natu re.

Theres u ltsfo un d in th is section (s ee  also Appe nd ix\[idea l \ _highres \]) identify the ideals ensitiv ity  targ et f or CMB sp ect ral di sto r tion p aramet ers a nd  CI B ampli t u de  th at  are achie v a ble  from  t he d ipole f requency behaviour . 

E lements[^19](2: 4, 2 : 4 )oft he mat ri x  qu a n tify the sensit ivity to t he CI B amplitud e . C om parison  with F IRASi n terms  of the $ \sigma$ l ev el o f sig nificancecan be e xtractedd irect l yfromthe  table s;  th e ide al imp r ove mentranges  f rom afacto rof about  1000 to 4000.

The ide al imp rovem ent  found fo r C M B s pectral d isto rtion para met ers  is a lso impre ssiv e .Ele m ents(1,5 :10) and( 5: 10, 1 )and element s ( 1,11:12 ) a n d (11: 12,1) refer to compa r isons betweentheb l ack bod y  and  B E and Comptoni zat io n distorti on s, respecti vely. Th ec ompar ison w ith FI RAS iss i mp l y quot ed b y t he elemen t o ft he matr ix  o f  the t able  m ultipl ied by ther a tio between theFIRAS $ 1\,\s i gma $ upp er  limito n $\ mu_0$ or $ u$ and thedistor tion  para meter v al ue con sid er ed in thet able. The  sens itivity  o n $u $ i s clea rlye n oughto d is ent angle bet w e en mi ni m almode ls of  r eion ization
 matrices_reported in_each of these tables_perhaps require_a_little more_explanation._Firstly, we should_point out that_the diagonals are zero_by construction. We_found_that the reduced $\chi^2$ ($\chi^2_{\rm r}
= \chi^2 / (n_{\rm d}-1)$, where $n_{\rm d}$ is_the_global number_of_data_being treated and we are_considering the estimate of a_single parameter,_namely CMB distortion or CIB amplitude), is always_extremely_close to unity,_which is an obvious validation cross-check. Note that, in_principle, when potential residuals are included,_one should specify_the_variance_pixel-by-pixel in the estimation_of $\chi^2$.[^18] This requires a precise_local characterization of residuals. While this_can easily be included by construction in_our analyses, we explicitly avoid implementing_this in the $\chi^2$ analysis,_but instead_perform our forecasts assuming knowledge_of only the_average level_of the residuals_in the sky region being considered._Secondly, we note_that the matrices are not perfectly_symmetric,_due to the_cross-terms_in_the squares_(from noise and_signal)_entering into_the_$\chi^2$. Thirdly, the off-diagonal terms are_sometimes_negative, but with absolute values compatible with_the quoted rms. These_second_and third effects are_clearly statistical in nature.

The results_found in this section (see also_Appendix \[ideal\_highres\]) identify_the ideal_sensitivity target for CMB spectral distortion parameters and CIB amplitude that_are achievable from the dipole frequency_behaviour.

Elements[^19] (2:4, 2:4) of_the matrix_quantify_the sensitivity to_the_CIB amplitude._Comparison with FIRAS in terms of the_$\sigma$ level_of significance can be extracted directly_from the tables; the_ideal_improvement ranges from a factor of_about 1000 to 4000.

The ideal improvement_found for CMB spectral distortion_parameters_is_also impressive. Elements (1, 5:10)_and (5:10, 1) and elements (1,_11:12) and (11:12,_1) refer to comparisons between the blackbody_and_BE and Comptonization distortions, respectively. The_comparison_with FIRAS is simply quoted by_the_element_of the matrix of the_table multiplied by the ratio between_the FIRAS $1\,\sigma$ upper limit on $\mu_0$ or $u$_and the distortion_parameter value considered in the_table._The_sensitivity on $u$ is clearly enough to disentangle between minimal_models of_reionization