 \right)^{-1},
    \label{eq:Hetaeta}\\
    \res_{\eta v} &= -i k_z \res_{\eta \eta} U' \res_{vv}.
    \label{eq:Hetav}
    \end{aligned}$$

Apparently, $\res_{vv}$ and $\res_{\eta v}$ are forced by $\hat{g}_v$ only, while $\res_{\eta \eta}$ is forced by $\hat{g}_\eta$ only. This motivates the separation of the response into two distinct families:

\[eq:OSSQ\] $$\begin{aligned}
        \begin{pmatrix}
        \hat{v}\\
        \hat{\eta}^\OS
        \end{pmatrix}
        &=
        \begin{pmatrix}
        \res_{vv}\\
        \res_{\eta v}
        \end{pmatrix}
        \hat{g}_v,
        \label{eq:resOS}\\
        \hat{\eta}^\SQ &= \res_{\eta\eta}\,
        \hat{g}_\eta.
        \label{eq:resSQ}
    \end{aligned}$$

In the following, we refer to the family of modes in \[eq:resOS\] as Orr-Sommerfeld (OS) modes and the family in \[eq:resSQ\] as Squire (SQ) modes. [The separation of $\hat{\eta}$ into two distinct families is common practice in linear stability analysis, where the SQ and OS modes are, respectively, the homogeneous and particular solutions of the Squire equation: $(-i\omega - \op{L}^\SQ)\hat{\eta}=-ik_zU'\hat{v}$ [@schmid2001]. That is, the OS modes can be interpreted as a response to the wall-normal velocity. This interpretation still holds in the nonlinear setting, since the second component of \[eq:resOS\] can be written as $\hat{\eta}^\OS = -ik_z\res_{\eta \eta}U'\hat{v}$. However, the SQ modes are no longer the homogeneous solutions, but are now interpreted as the response to forcing by $\hat{g}_\eta$.]{}

[Note that only the OS modes contain a $\hat{v}$ response, such that the SQ modes contribute only to the $\hat{\eta}$
\right)^{-1 }, 
     \label{eq: Hetaeta}\\ 
     \res_{\eta v } & = -i k_z \res_{\eta \eta } U' \res_{vv }. 
     \label{eq: Hetav } 
     \end{aligned}$$ 

 Apparently, $ \res_{vv}$ and $ \res_{\eta v}$ are forced by $ \hat{g}_v$ only, while $ \res_{\eta \eta}$ is push by $ \hat{g}_\eta$ merely. This motivates the separation of the response into two clear-cut families: 

 \[eq: OSSQ\ ] $ $ \begin{aligned } 
         \begin{pmatrix } 
         \hat{v}\\ 
         \hat{\eta}^\OS 
         \end{pmatrix } 
         & = 
         \begin{pmatrix } 
         \res_{vv}\\ 
         \res_{\eta v } 
         \end{pmatrix } 
         \hat{g}_v, 
         \label{eq: resOS}\\ 
         \hat{\eta}^\SQ & = \res_{\eta\eta}\, 
         \hat{g}_\eta. 
         \label{eq: resSQ } 
     \end{aligned}$$ 

 In the pursuit, we refer to the family of modes in \[eq: resOS\ ] as Orr - Sommerfeld (OS) manner and the family in \[eq: resSQ\ ] as Squire (SQ) modes. [ The legal separation of $ \hat{\eta}$ into two distinct families is coarse exercise in linear stability psychoanalysis, where the SQ and OS modes are, respectively, the homogeneous and especial solution of the Squire equation: $ (-i\omega - \op{L}^\SQ)\hat{\eta}=-ik_zU'\hat{v}$ [ @schmid2001 ]. That is, the OS modes can be represent as a response to the wall - normal velocity. This interpretation however holds in the nonlinear setting, since the second component of \[eq: resOS\ ] can be written as $ \hat{\eta}^\OS = -ik_z\res_{\eta \eta}U'\hat{v}$. However, the SQ modes are no longer the homogeneous solution, but are now interpreted as the response to forcing by $ \hat{g}_\eta$. ] { } 

 [ Note that merely the OS modes contain a $ \hat{v}$ response, such that the SQ modes contribute only to the $ \hat{\eta}$
 \rihht)^{-1},
    \label{eq:Hetaeta}\\
    \res_{\eta v} &= -i k_z \res_{\eta \eta} U' \res_{vv}.
    \label{eq:Hetav}
    \end{aligned}$$

Eppaeentlt, $\res_{vv}$ and $\res_{\eta v}$ afe forced by $\hat{g}_c$ onot, while $\res_{\eta \eta}$ is fodged bv $\iat{g}_\eta$ only. Thls motivatev the separatimn oy the response into two distinct famylies:

\[eq:PSDQ\] $$\begin{aligneq}
        \gvgln{pmatrix}
        \hat{v}\\
        \hat{\sta}^\OS
        \end{pmattix}
        &=
        \begin{pmwtrid}
        \res_{vv}\\
        \res_{\eta c}
        \end{pmatrkx}
        \hat{g}_v,
        \label{eq:resOS}\\
        \hat{\eta}^\SQ &= \fes_{\etc\eta}\,
        \hqt{g}_\fja.
        \lauel{eq:rvsSQ}
    \end{allbned}$$

In the foklowing, we refcr to thw family of modes in \[xq:resOS\] as Orr-Sommerseld (OS) mmdzs and the family in \[wq:eesSQ\] as Vquifw (SD) mkdxs. [Fhe seoaretion of $\haf{\eta}$ into tqo distinct familiex yw common pracfice ig jinear stability analysis, where the SQ dnd OS modes are, respectivwly, the homogeneous ajd partictlar solutions of the Squire equation: $(-i\omega - \op{L}^\VQ)\hat{\xtx}=-ik_eU'\mwg{c}$ [@dchmid2001]. That is, the OS modes can be interpreteq ax s response to bhe wall-normal velpcltu. This interprgtation stjll holds in the nlnlineat settung, since the second component of \[eq:resOW\] can be wrinten as $\hat{\eta}^\OS = -ik_z\rzs_{\eta \eta}U'\hac{v}$. Howgver, tne SQ modes are no longzr the homogeneoud solutiohr, but are now ingeriretad as tht response to forcyng by $\hav{g}_\eta$.]{}

[Uote thag onky the OS modes fontalt a $\hat{v}$ response, duch jhat tve SQ moded contribute only to the $\hat{\eta}$
\right)^{-1}, \label{eq:Hetaeta}\\ \res_{\eta v} &= -i k_z U' \label{eq:Hetav} \end{aligned}$$ $\res_{vv}$ and $\res_{\eta only, $\res_{\eta \eta}$ is by $\hat{g}_\eta$ only. motivates the separation of the response two distinct families: \[eq:OSSQ\] $$\begin{aligned} \begin{pmatrix} \hat{v}\\ \hat{\eta}^\OS \end{pmatrix} &= \begin{pmatrix} \res_{vv}\\ \res_{\eta \end{pmatrix} \hat{g}_v, \label{eq:resOS}\\ \hat{\eta}^\SQ &= \res_{\eta\eta}\, \hat{g}_\eta. \label{eq:resSQ} \end{aligned}$$ In the following, we to family modes \[eq:resOS\] as Orr-Sommerfeld (OS) modes and the family in \[eq:resSQ\] as Squire (SQ) modes. [The separation $\hat{\eta}$ into two distinct families is common practice linear stability analysis, where SQ and OS modes are, the and particular of Squire $(-i\omega - \op{L}^\SQ)\hat{\eta}=-ik_zU'\hat{v}$ That is, the OS modes can be interpreted as a response to the wall-normal velocity. This interpretation holds in setting, since second of can be written = -ik_z\res_{\eta \eta}U'\hat{v}$. However, the SQ longer the homogeneous solutions, but are now interpreted the response forcing by $\hat{g}_\eta$.]{} [Note that only OS modes contain a $\hat{v}$ response, such that SQ modes contribute only to the $\hat{\eta}$
 \right)^{-1},
    \label{eq:Hetaeta}\\
    \res_{\eta V} &= -i k_z \res_{\eta \Eta} U' \rEs_{vV}.
    \laBeL{eq:HEtav}
    \End{aligned}$$

AppaREntlY, $\res_{vv}$ and $\res_{\eta v}$ are forCed by $\HaT{G}_v$ onLY, wHile $\rEs_{\eta \etA}$ Is FORceD bY $\hAt{g}_\EtA$ OnLy. ThiS moTivates The separatIon Of The response iNTo Two distincT faMilies:

\[eq:OSSQ\] $$\BegIn{aligNeD}
        \beGIn{pmaTriX}
        \hat{v}\\
        \Hat{\eta}^\os
        \end{pmAtrix}
        &=
        \begiN{pMAtrix}
        \rES_{vv}\\
        \res_{\eTA V}
        \eNd{pmAtrix}
        \hat{g}_v,
        \label{eq:REsos}\\
        \hat{\eta}^\SQ &= \res_{\etA\eta}\,
        \haT{g}_\ETa.
        \LABel{Eq:rEsSQ}
    \end{aliGnEd}$$

In tHE followINg, WE REfeR To the family of Modes in \[eq:reSoS\] aS Orr-SoMmErfELd (OS) moDes anD tHE faMily in \[eq:ressQ\] as squire (SQ) mOdes. [ThE SeparatIOn of $\hat{\Eta}$ intO twO diStinCT fAmIliEs IS coMMoN prACtiCe in lineAr StAbiliTy anALYSIs, whEre The Sq and Os modes are, respEctIvelY, The HomogEneouS and PaRticuLar solUtionS oF the Squire equatIon: $(-i\Omega - \op{L}^\Sq)\haT{\eTa}=-iK_zu'\hat{v}$ [@SChmid2001]. THat Is, tHe OS modEs can be INteRpRETEd As a response to the waLl-NORmAl velociTy. This INtErPRetation StIll HoldS IN the nOnliNEaR setting, Since tHE sEcOnd compOnEnt of \[eQ:rEsOs\] caN be wrITten As $\hat{\eTa}^\OS = -ik_z\rEs_{\eta \ETa}U'\hat{v}$. However, THe SQ modes are nO LoNGEr THe hoMogEneous solutIons, BUt arE now INtErpREted aS the rEsPOnSE to forcing by $\hat{g}_\eta$.]{}

[noTe that Only tHe OS modes contAin a $\hat{v}$ reSPONse, such tHat tHE Sq Modes contributE only To the $\hat{\etA}$
 \right)^{-1},
    \label{ eq:Hetaeta }\\
  \re s_ {\et a v}  &= -i k_z \re s _{\e ta \eta} U' \res_{vv}. 
   \l a bel{ e q: Hetav }
    \ e nd { a lig ne d} $$
A p pa rentl y,$\res_{ vv}$ and $ \re s_ {\eta v}$ ar e  f orced by $ \ha t{g}_v$ only , w hile $ \r es_ { \eta\et a}$ i s forc e d by $ \hat{g}_\ et a $ only .  This m o t iv ates  the separation o f  t h e response int o twodi s ti n c t f ami lies:

\[e q: OSSQ\ ]  $$\beg i n{ a l i gne d }
        \be gin{pmatrix } 
      \h at{ v }\\
      \ h at{ \eta}^\OS
      \end{p matrix } 
      &=
       \ beg in{ pmat r ix }     \ r es _{v v }\\ 
       \ re s_{\e ta v }      \ end{ pmatr ix}
        \ hat {g}_ v ,
      \la bel{ eq :resO S}\\
     \hat{\eta}^\SQ&= \ res_{\eta \et a} \,     \hat{g }_\ eta .
       \lab e l{e q: r e s SQ }
    \end{aligned }$ $ 
I n the fo llowin g ,we refer to  t hefami l y  of m odes in  \[eq:re sOS\]a sOr r-Somme rf eld (O S)  mo des  andt he f amilyin \[eq: resSQ \ ] as Squire (S Q ) modes. [The se p a ra t ionof$\hat{\eta} $ in t o tw o di s ti nct famil ies i sc om m on practice in line ar  stabi lityanalysis, whe re the SQa n d  OS mode s ar e ,r espectively, t he ho mogeneousa nd parti cular  solutio ns of the S quire eq uat ion : $ (-i \ o me ga - \op{L}^\ S Q )\ha t{ \eta}=- ik_ zU'\hat {v} $ [ @sc hmi d2 001]. Tha t is, th eOS  m od escan b e  interpr et edas  arespo n se tothe w all- no rm a l v elocity .  T h i s in te rp reta tio nstill  hol d s i n the n onlinearset t ing,  s in ce thesecond compon en t of \[eq: re sOS \] can b e writte n as $\hat{\eta}^\OS =- ik_z\re s_{ \eta\eta }U'\hat{v }$.  Howev er, the SQ  modes  areno  lo n g er th e ho mog en eous solut i o ns,  butar e no w inter preted as the resp o nse  to forcing b y $ \hat { g }_ \et a $. ] {}
[ N ote t hat only the OS  modes con ta i na $\hat{v} $  re sp onse, s uch tha t the SQ mode s contrib ute onlyto  the $ \ha t{\eta}$
 \right)^{-1},
_ _ \label{eq:Hetaeta}\\
  _ \res_{\eta_v}_&= -i_k_z_\res_{\eta \eta} U'_\res_{vv}.
  _ \label{eq:Hetav}
  _ \end{aligned}$$

Apparently, $\res_{vv}$_and_$\res_{\eta v}$ are forced by $\hat{g}_v$ only, while $\res_{\eta \eta}$ is forced by $\hat{g}_\eta$_only._This motivates_the_separation_of the response into two_distinct families:

\[eq:OSSQ\] $$\begin{aligned}
  _ _   \begin{pmatrix}
    __  \hat{v}\\
_       \hat{\eta}^\OS
 _     _\end{pmatrix}
  ___   &=
_     _ \begin{pmatrix}
    _   \res_{vv}\\
   _    \res_{\eta v}
_    _ _\end{pmatrix}
    _  _\hat{g}_v,
 _  _   \label{eq:resOS}\\
  _  _  \hat{\eta}^\SQ &= \res_{\eta\eta}\,
 __  ___\hat{g}_\eta.
 _  __ _\label{eq:resSQ}
_   \end{aligned}$$

In the following,_we_refer to the family of modes in_\[eq:resOS\] as Orr-Sommerfeld (OS)_modes_and the family in_\[eq:resSQ\] as Squire (SQ) modes._[The separation of $\hat{\eta}$ into two_distinct families_is common_practice in linear stability analysis, where the SQ and OS modes_are, respectively, the homogeneous and particular_solutions of the Squire_equation: $(-i\omega_-_\op{L}^\SQ)\hat{\eta}=-ik_zU'\hat{v}$ [@schmid2001]. That_is,_the OS_modes can be interpreted as a response_to the_wall-normal velocity. This interpretation still holds_in the nonlinear setting,_since_the second component of \[eq:resOS\] can_be written as $\hat{\eta}^\OS = -ik_z\res_{\eta_\eta}U'\hat{v}$. However, the SQ modes_are_no_longer the homogeneous solutions, but_are now interpreted as the response_to forcing by_$\hat{g}_\eta$.]{}

[Note that only the OS modes contain_a_$\hat{v}$ response, such that the SQ_modes_contribute only to the $\hat{\eta}$