Comment 4 for bug 1862356

Hi Celine/Olivier,

The model attached by Celine seems to pre-date your longer email, is it the latest one that needs to be tested?

In any case, I tried to run this in MG v3.1.1 (I had to convert the model to v3 for this) and I can confirm that I get:

```
MG5_aMC>check brs g g > g z QCD=99 QED=1 NP=2 [virt=QCD]
[...]
Gauge results:
Process [virt=QCD] matrix BRS ratio Result
g g > g z 1.9378359556e-03 4.2873465380e+00 2.2124403904e+03 Failed
Summary: 0/1 passed, 1/1 failed
Failed processes: g g > g z
```

while of course removing the NP contributions, i.e. going back to the pure SM case, it still works:

```
MG5_aMC>check brs g g > g z [virt=QCD]
[...]
Gauge results:
Process [virt=QCD] matrix BRS ratio Result
g g > g z 9.0039116013e-02 1.6706986246e-19 1.8555253523e-18 Passed
Summary: 1/1 passed, 0/1 failed
```

However, when I do:
```
MG5_aMC>import model SMEFTNLOWZtaugsctGonly
MG5_aMC>set acknowledged_v3.1_syntax True
MG5_aMC>generate g g > g z QCD=99 QED=1 NP=2 [virt=QCD]
MG5_aMC>output CelineTEST
MG5_aMC>launch -f
```

and then I inspect the code generated, i.e. I look into:
```
CelineTEST/SubProcesses/P0_gg_gz/helas_calls_ampb_1.f
```
I find the following:
```
[...]
C Counter-term amplitude(s) for loop diagram number 58
      CALL VVVV21_0(W(1,1),W(1,2),W(1,3),W(1,4),R2GC_127_18,AMPL(1,34))
[...]
```

where `R2GC_127_18` is the R2 coupling of g g g Z which has `NP=2` in its coupling orders.
So it seems to be correctly included in this case.

So @Celine, what makes you think that it is removed/absent from the process output generated by MadLoop?