Arbitrary units or unitless plot to protect data? My question is about naming semi-arbitrary units in a (conference) paper.

I am writing a paper and, in accordance with advice from my mentor, I need to remove exact data and parameters from most of the paper because some of it is sensitive information. Ideally, I would like to preserve the shape of the plots but make the units arbitrary.

Note that this doesn't in any way interfere with understanding the results. The exact same procedure can be used regardless of the exact parameter value (literally the slope of a line), but we aren't allowed to publish that value.

In one case, I was plotting two curves on the same plot showing the difference in performance between two actuators. I normalized both curves, but then they more or less overlapped, which made the graphic uninteresting and a bit confusing. So, I normalized one plot and then did some relative scaling / biasing of the data to preserve the overall shape somewhat proportionally.

What would I call that? Normalized data? Arbitrary units? Unitless? Should I just make a note that the scale has been adjusted to preserve the shape?

In another case I have two sets of linear fitted data and I am having a similar issue on how to display and label these things, because the units will be rather arbitrary but it won't be quite normalized.

Thank you for your time.
If that paper is submitted to IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques (and judging by comments, this journal should be a decent enough fit for the purpose of this discussion), you would have to provide the measurement results. The journal guidelines explicitly ask for it and no arbitrary units or unitless plots will suffice.

Reproducibilty of the research is very important. And obfuscating the data certainly goes against it. If this plot &amp; experiment itself is crucial for the paper – and you are not allowed by any means to disclose the parameters required to reproduce your experiment – you don't have a paper. Which might be sad, but that's not "the science" and "scientific process" fault, but ITAR (if that's the case) and yours, by (un)willingly accepting their terms.

One might judge that this is a conference paper, not a full journal one. But I, personally, prefer to have very similar standards for both conference &amp; journal papers – and a lot of conferences have a similar (if not better) review process.