review action item tracker (Sourav and Beni) 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. RDO BTOF & FTOF (Wei/ Tonko?) – 30 min 5. DAQ streaming readout overview (Jeff/David) – 30 min 6. Closed session 7. Closeout

mechanic design updates? Room: https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1617546118?pwd=qNzxLqF8Q4Mj3RerAZdVSELzEgEQzV.1