N_{\rm
H,WA}$ frozen at 2.19 for simplicity.

We test three simple models for the spectral variability: a model with $CF$ free, $\Gamma$ frozen at 1.85 (from Rivers [et al.]{} 2011a), and $N_{\rm H,WA}$ frozen at $2 \times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ (which we call Model PC1); $\Gamma$ frozen at 1.85, $CF$ frozen at 0.75, and $N_{\rm
  H,WA}$ free (Model PC2); and $\Gamma$ free, $CF$ frozen at the arbitrary value of 0.75, and $N_{\rm H,WA}$ frozen at $2 \times
10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ (Model PC3). $A_1$ and $I_{\rm Fe}$ are free parameters in all fits. The results are summarized in Table A8.

For Model PC1, best-fitting values of $CF$ span $0.34$ to $1.00$, with the highest value occurring for the Fall 2011 spectrum ($\#4$). However, uncertainties on $CF$ are extremely large; we also cannot rule out full-covering for spectrum $\#2$. Values of $\chi^2_{\rm
  red}$ between each of the three models were very similar and usually $\la$1. For model PC2, spectrum $\#4$ yields a value of $N_{\rm H,WA}$ about twice that for spectra $\#2$, 3 and 5, but $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ was 1.57, with strong data/model residuals (at the $\sim10-20$ per cent level) below 4–5 keV.

For Model PC3, best-fitting values of $\Gamma$ are usually 1.7 and greater, with $\Gamma=1.55\pm0.04$ for the Fall 2011 spectrum; such values are not implausible based on empirical grounds. Since we cannot rule out flattening of the primary power law as the driver behind the observed variations in $HR1$, we cannot confirm that variations in properties of the ionized absorber occurred. More definitive results can be obtained if this source is subjected to future long-term X-ray spectral monitoring using higher energy resolution and a wider bandpass than the PCA, such as eROSITA or the proposed *Large Observatory For X-ray Tim
N_{\rm 
 H, WA}$ frozen at 2.19 for simplicity. 

 We test three simple model for the apparitional variability: a model with $ CF$ spare, $ \Gamma$ flash-frozen at 1.85 (from Rivers [ et al. ] { }   2011a), and $ N_{\rm H, WA}$ frozen at $ 2 \times 10^{23}$   cm$^{-2}$ (which we call Model PC1); $ \Gamma$ freeze at 1.85, $ CF$ frozen at 0.75, and $ N_{\rm 
   H, WA}$ free (Model PC2); and $ \Gamma$ complimentary, $ CF$ frozen at the arbitrary value of 0.75, and $ N_{\rm H, WA}$ frozen at $ 2 \times 
 10^{23}$   cm$^{-2}$ (Model PC3). $ A_1 $ and $ I_{\rm Fe}$ are barren parameters in all fits. The solution are sum up in Table   A8. 

 For Model PC1, best - fitting values of $ CF$ span $ 0.34 $ to $ 1.00 $, with the highest value happen for the Fall 2011 spectrum ($ \#4 $). However, uncertainties on $ CF$ are extremely large; we besides cannot rule out full - cover for spectrum $ \#2$. Values of $ \chi^2_{\rm 
   red}$ between each of the three model were very similar and usually $ \la$1. For model PC2, spectrum $ \#4 $ yields a value of $ N_{\rm H, WA}$ about twice that for spectra $ \#2 $, 3 and 5, but $ \chi^2_{\rm red}$ was 1.57, with potent data / model residuals (at the $ \sim10 - 20 $ per cent level) below 4–5   keV. 

 For Model PC3, well - fitting values of $ \Gamma$ are usually 1.7 and greater, with $ \Gamma=1.55\pm0.04 $ for the Fall 2011 spectrum; such values are not implausible based on empirical grounds. Since we cannot rule out flattening of the chief power law as the driver behind the ascertained variation in $ HR1 $, we cannot confirm that variation in properties of the ionized absorber occur. More definitive results can be obtained if this source is subjugate to future long - term X - ray spectral monitoring using gamey energy resolution and a wider bandpass than the PCA, such as eROSITA or the proposed * Large Observatory For ten - ray Tim
N_{\rm
J,WA}$ frozen at 2.19 for simpllcity.

We test thrge simplx modela for thd spectral variability: a modxl wuth $CD$ free, $\Gamma$ frozen at 1.85 (from Riners [et ao.]{} 2011a), aid $N_{\rm H,WA}$ frozei at $2 \times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ (ahick xe call Model PG1); $\Gamma$ frosen at 1.85, $CF$ frosev ct 0.75, and $N_{\rm
  H,WA}$ free (Model PC2); and $\Gwmma$ frre, $CF$ frozen at jhe agbytradj yalue of 0.75, and $N_{\rm H,WA}$ frozen at $2 \times
10^{23}$ ck$^{-2}$ (Model PC3). $A_1$ snd $I_{\rm Fe}$ are free paramehers in all fits. The rfsults are wummweized in Tabue A8.

For Modtl PC1, best-fijting values of $CF$ span $0.34$ to $1.00$, witf the highest vqlye lwcurring foc the Sall 2011 spectrmk ($\#4$). Howaver, unvertainties on $CF$ arw extremely large; we elso cannot rule out full-covesiug for spectrum $\#2$. Valuws of $\cvi^2_{\rm
  rea}$ begwetn xacg of tje vhree modela were very similar and usuallu $\jq$1. For model PD2, specertm $\#4$ yields a value of $N_{\rm H,WA}$ about twibe tgat for spectra $\#2$, 3 and 5, vut $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ was 1.57, wijh strong qata/model residuals (at the $\sim10-20$ per cent level) belmw 4–5 keT.

Fur Noqdo OC3, best-fitting values of $\Gamma$ are usually 1.7 ags brvater, with $\Gamma=1.55\pi0.04$ for the Fslp 2011 fpectrum; such values ade not implausible based jn empirical gwouncs. Since we cannot rule out flattening jd the primary powex law as the drifer brhind the observed varictions in $HR1$, we cwnnot conrkrm that variatiuns it properukes of the ionizeq absorbec occbrred. Mofe dgfinitide results can na obtained if this souree is subjected to future long-term X-ray spectrek monitoring uvinc higher enerny resolution agd a wider banbpass thcn the PCA, such zs eROSMTA or the pwoposed *Large Lbservatory Hor X-ray Eim
N_{\rm H,WA}$ frozen at 2.19 for simplicity. three models for spectral variability: a frozen 1.85 (from Rivers al.]{} 2011a), and H,WA}$ frozen at $2 \times 10^{23}$ (which we call Model PC1); $\Gamma$ frozen at 1.85, $CF$ frozen at 0.75, $N_{\rm H,WA}$ free (Model PC2); and $\Gamma$ free, $CF$ frozen at the arbitrary of and H,WA}$ at $2 \times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ (Model PC3). $A_1$ and $I_{\rm Fe}$ are free parameters in all The results are summarized in Table A8. For PC1, best-fitting values of span $0.34$ to $1.00$, with highest occurring for Fall spectrum However, uncertainties on are extremely large; we also cannot rule out full-covering for spectrum $\#2$. Values of $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ between of the were very and $\la$1. model PC2, spectrum a value of $N_{\rm H,WA}$ about spectra $\#2$, 3 and 5, but $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ 1.57, with data/model residuals (at the $\sim10-20$ per level) below 4–5 keV. For Model PC3, best-fitting of $\Gamma$ are usually 1.7 and greater, with $\Gamma=1.55\pm0.04$ for the Fall 2011 spectrum; such not implausible based on grounds. Since we rule flattening the power law the driver behind the observed variations in $HR1$, we cannot confirm variations in properties of the ionized absorber occurred. More definitive be if this source subjected to future long-term spectral using higher energy resolution wider than as or proposed *Large Observatory For Tim
N_{\rm
H,WA}$ frozen at 2.19 for simpliciTy.

We test thRee siMplE moDeLs foR the Spectral variabILity: A model with $CF$ free, $\Gamma$ fRozen At 1.85 (FRom RIVeRs [et aL.]{} 2011a), and $N_{\rM h,Wa}$ FRozEn At $2 \TimEs 10^{23}$ CM$^{-2}$ (wHich wE caLl Model pC1); $\Gamma$ froZen At 1.85, $cF$ frozen at 0.75, anD $n_{\rM
  H,WA}$ free (MoDel pC2); and $\Gamma$ frEe, $Cf$ frozeN aT thE ArbitRarY valuE of 0.75, and $n_{\Rm H,WA}$ fRozen at $2 \tiMeS
10^{23}$ Cm$^{-2}$ (ModeL pC3). $A_1$ and $I_{\RM fe}$ Are fRee parameters in alL FiTS. The results are SummarIzED iN tAblE A8.

FOr Model PC1, bEsT-fittINg valueS Of $cf$ SPan $0.34$ TO $1.00$, with the higheSt value occuRRinG for thE FAll 2011 SPectruM ($\#4$). HoweVeR, UncErtainties oN $CF$ aRe extremeLy largE; We also cANnot rulE out fuLl-cOveRing FOr SpEctRuM $\#2$. valUEs Of $\cHI^2_{\rm
  Red}$ betweEn EaCh of tHe thREE MOdelS weRe veRy simIlar and usuallY $\la$1. for mODel pC2, speCtrum $\#4$ YielDs A valuE of $N_{\rm h,WA}$ abOuT twice that for spEctrA $\#2$, 3 and 5, but $\chI^2_{\rm ReD}$ waS 1.57, wIth stROng datA/moDel ResiduaLs (at the $\SIm10-20$ pEr CENT lEvel) below 4–5 keV.

For ModEl pc3, BeSt-fittinG valueS Of $\gaMMa$ are usuAlLy 1.7 aNd grEATer, wiTh $\GaMMa=1.55\Pm0.04$ for the fall 2011 spECtRuM; such vaLuEs are nOt ImpLauSible BAsed On empiRical groUnds. SINce we cannot rulE Out flattening OF tHE PrIMary PowEr law as the dRiveR BehiNd thE ObSerVEd varIatioNs IN $Hr1$, We cannot confirm that VaRiatioNs in pRoperties of thE ionized abSORBer occurRed. MORe DEfinitive resulTs can Be obtained IF this souRce is SubjecteD to future LONg-term X-rAy sPecTraL moNIToRing using highER EnerGy ResolutIon And a widEr bAndPasS thAn The PCA, sucH as eROSItA Or ThE pRopOsed *LARge ObserVaTorY FOr X-Ray TiM
N_{\rm
H,WA}$ frozen at 2. 19 for sim plici ty. 

W etest  thr ee simple mode l s fo r the spectral variabi lity:  a mode l  w ith $ CF$ fre e ,$ \ Gam ma $fro ze n  a t 1.8 5 ( from Ri vers [et a l.] {}  2011a), and $N _{\rm H,WA }$frozen at $2  \t imes 1 0^ {23 } $ cm$ ^{- 2}$ ( whichw e call  Model PC 1) ;  $\Gam m a$ froz e n  a t 1. 85, $CF$ frozen a t  0 . 75, and $N_{\r m
  H, WA } $f r ee(Mo del PC2);an d $\G a mma$ fr e e, $ C F$f rozen at thearbitrary v a lue  of 0. 75 , a n d $N_{ \rm H ,W A }$frozen at $ 2 \t imes
10^{ 23}$ c m $^{-2}$ (ModelPC3).$A_ 1$and$ I_ {\ rmFe } $ a r efre e  pa rameters  i nall f its. T h e  res ult s ar e sum marized in Ta ble  A8. 
Fo r Mod el PC 1, b es t-fit ting v alues  o f $CF$ span $0. 34$to $1.00$ , w it h t he  high e st val ueocc urringfor the Fal l2 0 1 1spectrum ($\#4$).Ho w e ve r, uncer tainti e son $CF$ are  e xtr emel y large ; we al so canno t rule ou tfull-co ve ring f or  sp ect rum $ \ #2$.  Value s of $\c hi^2_ { \rm
  red}$ be t ween each oft he t hr e e mo del s were very  sim i larandu su all y  $\la $1. F or mo d el PC2, spectrum $\ #4 $ yiel ds avalue of $N_{ \rm H,WA}$ a b out twic e th a tf or spectra $\# 2$, 3  and 5, bu t  $\chi^2 _{\rm  red}$ w as 1.57,w i th stron g d ata /mo del r es iduals (at th e $\si m1 0-20$ p ercent le vel ) b elo w 4 –5  keV.

Fo r ModelPC 3,  b es t-f ittin g  valuesof  $\ Ga mma $ are usuall y 1.7  and  g re a ter , with$ \G a m ma=1 .5 5\ pm0. 04$  f or th e Fa l l 2 011 spe ctrum; su chv alue sar e not i mplausible ba se d on empir ic alground s .  Since w e cannot rule out flatt e ning of  th e pri mary  power la w a s thedri v er beh ind th e obs er ved v ariat i o ns  in  $ HR1$, we c a n not  conf ir m th at vari ations in properti e s o f the ionized  ab sorb e r  o ccu r re d . M or e  de f i nitive resultscan be obt ai n ed  if this s o urc eis subj ected t o fut u re long -term X-r ay spectr al  mon i t ori ng using h igher en ergy reso l ution an d a w ide r band pa ssthanthe PC A , s uch a s eROS IT A or t he pr op osed *La rge Observatory For X-r ay Tim 
N_{\rm
H,WA}$ frozen_at 2.19_for simplicity.

We test three_simple models_for_the spectral_variability:_a model with_$CF$ free, $\Gamma$_frozen at 1.85 (from_Rivers [et al.]{} 2011a),_and_$N_{\rm H,WA}$ frozen at $2 \times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ (which we call Model PC1); $\Gamma$ frozen_at_1.85, $CF$_frozen_at_0.75, and $N_{\rm
  H,WA}$_free (Model PC2); and $\Gamma$_free, $CF$_frozen at the arbitrary value of 0.75, and_$N_{\rm_H,WA}$ frozen at_$2 \times
10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ (Model PC3). $A_1$ and $I_{\rm Fe}$ are_free parameters in all fits. The_results are summarized_in_Table A8.

For_Model PC1, best-fitting values_of $CF$ span $0.34$ to $1.00$,_with the highest value occurring for_the Fall 2011 spectrum ($\#4$). However, uncertainties_on $CF$ are extremely large; we_also cannot rule out full-covering_for spectrum_$\#2$. Values of $\chi^2_{\rm
 _red}$ between each_of the_three models were_very similar and usually $\la$1. For_model PC2, spectrum_$\#4$ yields a value of $N_{\rm_H,WA}$_about twice that_for_spectra_$\#2$, 3_and 5, but_$\chi^2_{\rm_red}$ was_1.57,_with strong data/model residuals (at the_$\sim10-20$_per cent level) below 4–5 keV.

For Model PC3,_best-fitting values of $\Gamma$_are_usually 1.7 and greater,_with $\Gamma=1.55\pm0.04$ for the Fall_2011 spectrum; such values are not_implausible based_on empirical_grounds. Since we cannot rule out flattening of the primary power_law as the driver behind the_observed variations in $HR1$,_we cannot_confirm_that variations in_properties_of the_ionized absorber occurred. More definitive results can_be obtained_if this source is subjected to_future long-term X-ray spectral_monitoring_using higher energy resolution and a_wider bandpass than the PCA, such_as eROSITA or the proposed_*Large_Observatory_For X-ray Tim