different time slot for general TOF meeting? Room: https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1617546118?pwd=qNzxLqF8Q4Mj3RerAZdVSELzEgEQzV.1 We have discussed this a few times. Some of the main contributors to TOF: BNL/Kent/Oakridge/Purdue: EST Japan/Taiwan: EST+14/EST+13 UCSC/LBL/LANL: PST, EST-3 Hawaii: HST, EST-5 Rice/UIC: CST, EST-1 Tonko: Europe, EST+6 India: EST+10.5 Given the daylight saving time change, it was proposed to hold this meeting at 7PM EST, which may maximize the participation. Last time, we discussed, it seemed that this WAS not possible for our asian collaborators (that was before US time switch). It is not possible for Tonko to participate, and not possible for Indian groups, not possible for the Purdue group AFAIK.

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 proposal for beam test at DESY in December (We were informed last week that PED support for DESY beam test was NOT approved): 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 3 The project decided to hold TOF peer review on December 3 , 2025 instead of TOF PDR. As such all engineering and DAQ related talks won't be needed for that. The indico agenda is below Review December 3rd confirmed Indico: https://indico.bnl.gov/event/30519/ Apart from review there will be extended page turn on 24th November at 6:00 PM (EST) where the speakers are expected to have all their slides ready. Below is the agenda details. -extended page turns 24th of November starting 6:00 pm Indico: https://indico.bnl.gov/event/30520/ Subject: Charge - Peer Review of the EIC Particle Identification Detectors based on AC-LGAD, December 3rd, 2025 The scope of this peer review includes the particle identification detectors based on time-of-flight using AC-LGAD in the central EIC detector. This includes one detector system in the barrel (bTOF) and one in the forward endcap region (fTOF). (The review also compares with envisioned AC-LGAD applications in the auxiliary detector systems in the far-forward and far-backward region.) The peer review covers the design and projected performance for these detectors, and the plans towards production phase. The review may include design and fabrication choices and their cost-effectiveness, the construction schedule, considerations for safety and quality assurance, levels of redundancy, commissioning and calibration procedures, considerations for materials and labor, operational reliability and longevity, and any other considerations that may influence the construction, maintenance and operation of these particle identification detectors. This is an assessment of the status of these detectors. We anticipate a further two-day preliminary design review of the readiness of these detectors in the April 2026 time frame which will feed into the upcoming project reviews for Critical-Decision 2 (baselining) anticipated to be mid-2026. The expected design maturity at that stage (mid-2026) is 60% or higher, with still roughly 1.5 years for final design completion remaining before start of construction anticipated in 2028. For this peer review, any comments and recommendations to fold into the design continuation are very welcome. Please address the following questions point-by-point based on the current stage of the project: 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 the AC-LGAD based detector systems sufficiently developed for the present phase of the project?

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