(Below, I refer to the Handbook. This is the **Handbook of Set Theory**, Foreman, Kanamori, eds., Springer, 2010.)

The bulk of these results appears in notes by James Cummings. You may want to ask him about them. Originally these notes were intended for a book on Radin forcing to be coauthored by him and Hugh, but significant portions of it appear in his Handbook article. (The book exists in draft form.)

There are a few additional facts about Radin forcing that did not make it into the article, but James has write ups of them, and of course the theory has expanded since.

For $\mathsf{SCH}$ specifically, some details appear in Gitik's paper *The negation of the singular cardinal hypothesis from $o(\kappa)=\kappa^{++}$*, APAL **43** (1989), 209-234. The state of the art in this regard is described in Gitik's Handbook article, his papers, and those of his co-authors, particularly Carmy Merimovich.

Some applications of Radin/Prikry-like forcing in the context of determinacy are not in any of the above. You can see some in the Koellner-Woodin Handbook article, and yet others in the proofs of the derived model theorem, most of which can be seen (perhaps in preliminary form) here.

The one thing I do not think is in either place is a discussion of $T$-degrees, or *constructibility degrees*. Hugh discusses some of this (briefly) in *The cardinals below* $|[\omega_1]^{<\omega_1}|$, APAL **140** (2006), 161–232, but there is a bit more than this.

Richard Ketchersid wrote up the basics in a nice article, *More structural consequences of $\mathsf{AD}$*, in **Set Theory and Its Applications**, Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 533, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2011, pp. 71-106. To define these degrees, assume the axiom of determinacy, so we have Martin's cone measure on Turing-invariant sets of reals. Given sets of ordinals $T$ and $S$, define $S\lt T$ iff for almost every $r$ (in the sense of Martin's measure)
$$ L[T,x]\cap\mathbb R\setminus L[S,x]\ne\emptyset. $$
It turns out that for any two sets of ordinals $S,T$, precisely one of the following holds:

- $S\lt T$, in which case for almost every $x$, the reals of $L[S,x]$ are in $L[T,x]$.
- $T\lt S$, in which case for almost every $x$, $\mathbb R\cap L[T,x]\subset L[S,x]$.
- For almost every $x$, $\mathbb R\cap L[T,x]=\mathbb R\cap L[S,x]$.

If option 3 holds, we say that $S$ and $T$ have the same degree. The relation $\lt$ induces a well-ordering of degrees. This is established, together with the basic properties of these degrees, via Prikry-like arguments.

It is possible that there are yet additional results not in any of the above. In that case, I doubt there are formal written notes, but there may be accounts in notes from seminar talks.