The points raised here might be a bit pedantic but I think important. They stem from the below diagram that we have been presenting to folks and the idea that we will host all NextGen products under the Geospatial Fabric Archive. *Caveat with this diagram is that I think all references to "flowline" need to change to "flowpath".  1. In the GF_* outputs there are layers called `nhd_flowline` and `nhd_catchment`. Due the the changes in the baseline data these aren't truly 'nhd_*' anymore. I had trouble with this point when talking to some folks at the Iowa flood center. I suggest maybe `ref_flowline`/`ref_catchment` or `reference_flowline`/`reference_catchment` or `baseline_flowline`/`baseline_catchment`? This would not only provide more clarity to the layers, but would help in the ongoing paper writing :smile:. 2. Given the ongoing discussion about flowpaths vs flowlines, I also think they should be called `*_flowpath` rather then `*_flowline`. 3. This carries into the outputs of the refactored workflow, I think `divides` and `reconciled` are only intuitive to those familiar with the `hyRefactor` codebase. I would suggest `refactored_flowpaths`/`refactored_catchments` - or - if the point 1 layers are called `baseline_*` then these would be the `reference_*` layers? 4. Given the `GF_*` outputs live under the "Refactored Fabric" parent item, having the `agg_cats` and `agg_fline` seem to be too much. They are also confusing in the scope of the above image given we have two distinct aggregation workflows to meet the needs of different modeling tasks. Can these be split out into separate data files that live under a different parent item? I think that incorporating these changes will make the data archive mesh with the above image and how we've discussed the project to outside groups. If these ideas don't sit well - then maybe we should reevaluate the above image (hopefully before FIHM in two weeks). Thanks for the consideration! Mike