Legend: Bold face encodes 'need more information'; italics encodes issues that are settled in the sense that they are the basis for future discussions.

• What fidelity of mission design are we expected to deliver? Two weeks of TeamX is hardly enough to give high fidelity design. Keith: Sufficiently credible for the ICA process to proceed; Length of final report is TBD. With a shorter report not much information is required.
• What is the overarching goal: consensus that it is to persuade the decadal to establish a funding wedge. Keith says that the previous decadal was not convinced that there was good science to be done within this funding wedge.
• The Decadal panel is mandated by congress to solicit an ICA, hence the Cost and Technical Evaluation (CATE) process. They contracted with Aerospace Corp. to do the CATE. 2010 was the first time Aerospace was involved. Since then process refined.
• Question: do the JPL (TeamX), SOMA, and Aerospace cost models agree? TeamX and Aerospace are very similar. Keith doesn't know much about SOMA's; will check.
• General guidelines:
  • build mission around a known marker (e.g. Planck). Keith gives the examples of EXO-??
  • watch out for new technologies. They tend to increase the costs.
  • stay close to JPL cost guidelines. Aerospace generally agrees with them.
  • if you get closer than 10% of mass and power, you incur penalty in cost.
• Consensus: Space mission will do full sky, and have broad frequency coverage
• No appetite for V Stokes measurements
• Began discussion about resolution. Consensus: space mission can not depend on other measurements, e.g. ground measurements for delivering it's main science targets. If delensing is required to reach the r target, it should be self-delensing
• Report must address ground, sub-orbital complementarity