Figure 1 and 2 show the TFs from top right actuator (seen from AR side, H1 for MCI and MCO, H4 for MCE) to pitch and yaw OpLev signals, respectively.
Figure 3 and 4 show the TFs from bottom right actuator (seen from AR side, H2 for MCI and MCO, H3 for MCE) to pitch and yaw OpLev signals, respectively.
Figure 5 and 6 show the TFs from bottom left actuator (seen from AR side, H3 for MCI and MCO, H2 for MCE) to pitch and yaw OpLev signals, respectively.
Figure 7 and 8 show the TFs from top left actuator (seen from AR side, H4 for MCI and MCO, H1 for MCE) to pitch and yaw OpLev signals, respectively.
Figure 9 and 10 show the TFs from pitch and yaw excitation to  pitch and yaw OpLev signals, respectively.

I'm not sure which TFs are good ones but at least TFs of MCO has several times smaller DC gains and larger coupling.
Also, MCO pitch to pitch TFs have very small Q resonance compared to the other suspensions'.

I and Takahashi-san discussed these results and conclded that MCO might touch somewhere.
So, we investigated MCO today (klog20385t).

Note:
The automesurement data are stored at /kagra/Dropbpx/Measurement/VIS/PLANT/{MCI,MCE,MCO}/2022/04/PLANT_{MCI,MCE,MCO}_STANDBY_TM_{TEST,COILOUTF}_{L,P.Y,H1,H2,H3,H4}_20220405****.xml (**** is the starting time of the measurement in JST).