I'm continuing to investigate the discrepancy between the data unfolded with our Pythia8 response and our Pytha6 response.  A summary of the issue and investigation thus far can be found here:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/GammaJetUpdate_AndersonJul30.v0.pdf

As a check, we decided to compare doing the full unfolding vs. simply dividing the data by the jet-matching efficiency bin-by-bin.  If the two methods differ, then that would point to an issue with the unfolding process (likely the response matrix itself).  First, as a reminder, here's the comparison of the unfolded solutions:

For the second method, we took the data and divided by the jet-matching efficiency from Pythia8 and Pythia6 respectively.  Here's the comparison of the resulting two spectra:

And lastly, here's all the distributions plotted on top of each other:

So the two methods differ substantially!  But, noticeably, the spectra divided by the jet-matching efficiency are consistent with the spectra unfolded with the Pythia6 response.  We should anticipate the two (dividing by the jet-matching efficiency and doing the full unfolding) should be very close since the efficiency is the dominant systematic.  This indicates that issue lies in the Pythia8 response matrix.  Perhaps in the normalization?  Either way, I will next take a hard look at the Pythia8 response matrix.