Recap and action item: October 13 internal project review for TOF ACLGAD sensors Room: https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1617546118?pwd=qNzxLqF8Q4Mj3RerAZdVSELzEgEQzV.1

Beam Test at Jlab and DESY and Japan updates? Room: https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1617546118?pwd=qNzxLqF8Q4Mj3RerAZdVSELzEgEQzV.1 JLab and DESY beam tests go well data-taking completed last week (08/17) need 2-3 weeks to analyze the data for preliminary results. proposal for beam test at DESY in December (goals and plan from Zhenyu): A. Module size 3.2x2.0 cm^2 strip sensors with variant pitches (500 um, 750 um, 1000 um), electrode metal width (40 um, 50 um) and thickness (30um, 50um) => previously we studied 0.5x1.0 cm^2 strip sensors with 500 um pitch, 50 um electrode and 20 or 50 um thickness [1] B. Module size 1.6x1.6 cm^2 pixel sensors with variant pitches (500 um, 750 um, 1000 um), electrode metal width (50 um, 100 um) and thickness (20um, 30um) => previously we studied 0.2x0.2 cm^2 pixel sensor with 500 um pitch, >=150 um electrode and 20 or 50 um thickness [1] For strip sensors, the focus would be 1. assess the sensor performance at different incident angles (all the previous beam tests were conducted with 0 degree incident angle) 2. study regions that were not covered (1000 um pitch) or less well covered (750 um pitch) in JLab beam test to see whether or not BTOF can use larger pitch strips than the default design (500 um pitch) 3. Identify optimal strip sensor design (pitch, electrode width, thickness) for barrel TOF For pixel sensors, the deliverable would be 1. First measurements of module-size pixel sensor performance, 2. Verify if the smaller electrode width (50 or 100um) can indeed improve the spatial resolution under the electrode (For previous sensors with 150 um electrodes, we achieved ~20 um resolution between electrodes and ~60um resolution under the electrodes) 3. Identify optimal pixel sensor design (pitch, electrode width, thickness) for forward TOF and far-forward detectors [1] NIMA (2025) 170224 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2025.170224 P.S. Participation to the DESY beam test from other groups are welcome, but not required if the total budget is a concern.

December review (PDR) Room: https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1617546118?pwd=qNzxLqF8Q4Mj3RerAZdVSELzEgEQzV.1 December 4-5? charges: 1. Are the technical performance requirements appropriately defined and complete for this stage of the project? 2. Are the plans for achieving detector performance and construction sufficiently developed and documented for the present phase of the project? 3. Are the current designs and plans for detector and electronics readout likely to achieve the performance requirements with a low risk of cost increases, schedule delays, and technical problems? 4. Are the fabrication and assembly plans for subsystem consistent with the overall project and detector schedule? 5. Are the plans for detector subsystem integration in the EIC detector appropriately developed for the present phase of the project? 6. Have ES&H and QA considerations been adequately incorporated into the designs at their present stage? 7. Have the recommendations from previous reviews been adequately addressed? preliminary Agenda: Day 1: 1. Closed session - 20 min 2. Welcome & Introduction (Rolf / Elke) - 20 min 3. TOF System Overview & Requirement (Sourav/Beni) - 20 min 4. TOF integration status (Rahul or Dan) – 20 min (focus on TOF installation/integration+ services) 5. TOF mechanical & support design (Sushrut /Andy) - 20 min (focus on support structure and mechanical design of TOF) 6. BTOF (Simone / Satoshi) - 30 min 7. FTOF (Mathieu) - 30 min 8. TOF common system (Satoshi) - 30 min (focus on cooling, assembling modules on support structure, alignment system) 9. Closed session Day 2: 1. Q&A : BTOF, FTOF, CTOF – 30 min 2. Sensors BTOF (Simone) – 30 min 3. Sensors FTOF (Mathieu) – 30 min 4. ASICS BTOF & FTOF (Wei/ Tonko?) – 30 min 5. DAQ streaming readout overview (Jeff/David) – 30 min 6. Closed session 7. Closeout

PED 2026

• Simone Michele Mazza
• Simone Mazza (University of California - Santa Cruz)

Room: https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1617546118?pwd=qNzxLqF8Q4Mj3RerAZdVSELzEgEQzV.1 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_7CQUjbQNwc8BXJRIVZw9mbGGia9fScGteqx8tj-w5o/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0#heading=h.n3rl7f6hkly1 TOF group has to now start focussing on first engineering test article as per P6 plan and so it is expected that the PED request will be geared towards assembling first engineering test article.

update to P6 for CD2 Room: https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1617546118?pwd=qNzxLqF8Q4Mj3RerAZdVSELzEgEQzV.1 Dear Detector DSL and DSTC, in preparation for CD2 the project will be reviewed about the status of the project P6 cost and schedule in the week of November 12th. This review will focus solely on cost and schedule and assess where we are in preparation for the DOE CD2 review some time next year. This review will not look at the technical aspects of the detector but solely focuses on cost and schedule. One important focus will be on BOEs (Basis of estimates) for each activity in P6. I know some of you are now working on concrete design specs and cost estimates. The following link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/s7aiemva9kicqd0dylmuk/AAf0Ds6F3Yj_RpbPRj1H1aQ?rlkey=w8ak75x2dt6w9r1xn21tyw7sr&st=8wwmdeqt&dl=0 contains all the current information we have about each of the PID detectors upon which the P6 project cost and schedule is based. The directory also contains a recent snapshot of the P6 project cost and schedule. If you have new information about cost estimates and quotes for parts of the detectors please let us know and send us this information so that we can updated our records in preparation for this review. thank you for all your help, Beni

mechanic design updates? Room: https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1617546118?pwd=qNzxLqF8Q4Mj3RerAZdVSELzEgEQzV.1 Dear All, it is now a while already we decided that we go to 12 segments for the ToF and that each segment couples the TOF and MicroMega sector. We asked quite some time ago about the orientation of the staves, do you still want them at an angle if yes what angle will the staves have or do you want to have them more flat, like following the layout of the micromega sectors. I was wondering you have dedicated any resources/thoughts to resolve this question. It would be really nice to get an answer soon as we want to move forward on the ePIC design and this type of questions need to be resolved. We are happy to discuss this in more detail, just let us know. Cheers Elke <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< We discussed this at the workfest. It seems that there is no a preference on what should be. In terms of mechanic stability and heat dispersion, Andy seems to think that either way there is no advantage. Since we have segments of 12, probably should make it with 0 angle. Summary of the features of each configuration (offset flat, or angle): staves with an angle: every stave geometry is the same, same amount of material (by the other stave) in the front of the stave. heat radiation from the other stave to this one is the same, some low-pt particles (say positive) have incident angle closer to 90 degree while the opposite charge may go through the gap without hitting sensors. stave with flat offset: two levels of staves, lower-level staves have less material in front while the second-level staves have more material from the lower-level staves. low-pt particles have larger incident angle, but positive/negative acceptance is symmetric. It could be designed that every stave is perpendicular to the radial direction.

preTDR editing Room: https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1617546118?pwd=qNzxLqF8Q4Mj3RerAZdVSELzEgEQzV.1 https://www.overleaf.com/project/66e0603e1fc718e728c9d072 Below are the minutes from our Zoom discussion on the TOF chapter, with a focus on what we must do next. Please reply with any corrections or updates. MINUTES (Summary)       1.    Purpose       •     Rework the TOF chapter (for pre-TDR/TVR) so it is reader-friendly and ready for the review committee.       2.    Schedule (hard dates)       •     Review Committee meets: November 12–14, 2025.       •     We aim to send the document by October 31, 2025 to allow a short editorial pass before submission.       3.    Decisions / Principles       •     Separate requirements (physics-driven) from technology (solutions). Keep requirements technology-agnostic. Radiation tolerance should state expected levels by region; AC-LGAD and other R&D specifics go in the performance/technology sections.       •     Split ES&H and QA; integrate QA with manufacturing/assembly plan.       •     Rename “Risks & Mitigation” to “Technological Challenges and Path Forward.”       •     De-emphasize R&D lists (R&D formally ends in 2025); refer only to results needed for the chapter’s arguments.       •     Avoid concrete calendar dates in the text (e.g., “Q1 2025”); prefer stage/phase descriptions.       •     Centralize electronics/ASIC/readout general content in a single electronics overview; detector chapters should reference rather than duplicate.       •     Remove values for other subsystems (e.g., B0) from TOF tables; place them in their own sections to avoid duplication/inconsistency.       •     Verify and align all numbers (channel counts, areas, coverage, etc.) across text, tables, and figures.       •     Improve readability: add a sensor “cartoon” figure and reduce unnecessary acronyms. WHAT WE MUST DO NEXT (Action Items) Owner: Zhangbu & Satoshi Task: Restructure the full chapter to cleanly separate Requirements / Technology / Performance, relocate ES&H/QA as agreed, and apply the new “Technological Challenges and Path Forward” section title. Notes: This is the backbone edit that other items depend on. Owner: Zhangbu & Satoshi Task: Remove non-TOF subsystem values (e.g., B0) from TOF tables and move them to their own sections; ensure technology descriptions appear only once in the correct place. Notes: Prevent cross-chapter duplication and conflicting numbers. Owner: Zhangbu & Satoshi Task: Audit and harmonize all quantitative entries (channel counts, areas, acceptance, fluence assumptions, etc.) across text, figures, and tables. Notes: Provide a one-page “numbers sheet” as source of truth. Owner: Satoshi Task: Provide a clear sensor cartoon (or simplify an existing one) for the intro/system explanation. Notes: Keep text modest; include callouts only for essentials. Owner: Simone Task: Update/confirm fluence-related plots; ensure latest inputs, labels, and conditions are explicit. Notes: Include caption text stating source, assumptions, and units. Owner: All contributors Task: Acronym cleanup: define on first use; remove non-essential acronyms; use plain terms where practical. Notes: Provide an acronym list if truly needed. Owner: Electronics (Wei & Tonko) Task: Consolidate ASIC/readout general discussion into the electronics overview; in detector chapters, keep only minimal, relevant references and measured performance. Notes: Avoid diagram elements that are no longer part of the design (e.g., remove FPGA blocks if obsolete). Owner: Zhangbu & Satoshi → Silvia&John Task: Share progress updates and ensure there is editorial time before submission. Notes: Short pre-submission pass to catch structure/consistency issues. Owner: All contributors Task: Avoid specific calendar dates in prose where possible; describe steps by phase/milestone. Notes: Keeps the chapter resilient to schedule shifts. OPEN / FOLLOW-UPS       •     Re-classify any ambiguous figures (e.g., system vs. performance) into the correct sections.       •     Confirm current readout board architecture in figures (e.g., remove FPGA blocks if not used).       •     In TOF text, clearly signpost BTOF vs. FTOF and avoid repeating common material. TIMELINE REMINDER       •     Internal restructuring and figure/number updates → editorial pass in late October.       •     Submission by Oct 31, 2025 → Review Committee Nov 12–14, 2025. If you own an item above, please confirm feasibility and flag blockers ASAP. Best regards, Satoshi