Casual observation: Number of Qs representing senators' concurring, or joined requests, is significant by comparison to a tally of sole-custody interlocutor. < wipes tears > The result indicates that some, if not all, Qs circulated within party caucuses for signatures, before and possibly during proceedings. (This sub rosa, in vivo processing could certainly have impeded senate pages retrieval of will-call slips which resulted in conspicuous delays between readings of Qs.) The total number of Qs collected and Qs discarded or embargoed by party leaders is unknown. And since (R) caucus exercised this prerogative more frequently than (D), I suspect, its principle purpose was to canvass support for or against admission of particular evidence (doc, oral) omitted from H.Reports and Trial brief Material Fact lists. I also note with interest (R) senators' alignments by group to particular subject matter examinations and re-directions. OTOH, (D) senators were not so organized.