It is the vertical velocity profile $w = \hat w$ (type in "plot -1/3*sinh(z+1), sinh(z-1), z=-1..1" on WolframAlpha and rotate the resulting graph by +90, for a positive outcome change inverse the sign of the leading constants).
Two-dimensional stability analysis of viscid and inviscid flow assumes flow that is perturbed according to
$$ u(x,z,t) = U(z) + \hat u(x,z,t)$$
$$ w(x,z,t) = \hat w(x,z,t)$$
$$ p(x,z,t) = P + \hat p(x,z,t)$$
For an incompressible fluid the continuity equation can be fulfilled by a stream function
$$\psi(x,z,t) = \Psi(z) e^{i k (x - ct) }$$
where $k$ and $c$ can be complex numbers. For judging the stability we have to consider the imaginary part of these complex numbers.
- The flow is stable in space ($k$) and time ($c$) if the corresponding imaginary part leads to damping $Im < 0$.
- It is unstable if the imaginary part is instigating $Im > 0$.
- It behaves neutrally if $Im = 0$: This behaviour is called marginally stable.
The corresponding velocities are given by the general solution
$$ \hat u = \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial z} = \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial z} e^{i k (x - ct) } $$
$$ \hat w = - \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} = - i k \Psi e^{i k (x - ct) } $$
Popping this into the linearised momentum equation for an inviscid fluid yields the Rayleigh's equation
$$ (U - c) (\Psi'' - k^2 \Psi) - U'' \Psi = 0 $$
In your example the base velocity of the unperturbed flow in x-direction is given by a Couette flow $U(z) = z$. Due to ($\frac{\partial^2 U(z)}{\partial z^2} = 0$ the Rayleigh's equation in your case simplifies to
$$ (U - c) (\Psi'' - k^2 \Psi) = 0 $$
If there was no perturbation in your system due to the walls on both side there would be no vertical motion at all. While inviscid flow does not have to fulfilled the no-slip condition near walls (in your case the flow is a developed profile and due to absence to viscosity it will stay that way but inviscid flow itself would not result in such a flow profile), the perturbation has nonetheless to respect the top and bottom boundary condition $w(z=-1)=0$ and $w(z=1)=0$ - it can't penetrate the wall. Due to continuity for an incompressible fluid
$$ \frac{\partial u}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial w}{\partial z} = 0 $$
we can express a correlation between the two velocities
$$ \frac{\partial u}{\partial x} = - \frac{\partial w}{\partial z} = - i k \underbrace{\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial z} e^{i k (x - ct) }}_{\hat u} = - i k \hat u.$$
In your case the perturbation is given by
$$ \hat w_+ = A_+ sinh(k(z-1)) \, \, \, \text{for} \, \, \, 1 \geq z > z_c $$
$$ \hat w_- = A_- sinh(k(z+1)) \, \, \, \text{for} \, \, \, 1 \leq z < z_c $$
which are both of type $\hat w = A sinh(y(z)) = \frac{A}{2} (e^{y(z)} - e ^{-y(z)})$ where $y = k(z \pm 1)$.
