Attendance: Shaul, Al, Amy, Jamie, Brendan, Charles
Notes by: Jamie

* Workshops - Foregrounds (get update from Raphael)

- Science + Complementarity (Shaul waiting for reply from Carlstrom; Clem said he would raise the question about a common workshop during an S4 SOC telecon on Monday. Perhaps Clem can report on the discussion. SH also waiting for response from SOC regarding a brief Probe presentation at Harvard.)

* Name for the Probe - Below is a draft e-mail soliciting suggestions from the community. Suggested process: people offer suggestions, EC decides. EC Discussion: any comments?

Various incarnations of proposed, US-led, CMB polarization missions had these names: Inflation Probe, CMBPol, EPIC (Experimental Probe of Inflationary Cosmology), and PIXIE (Primordial Inflation Explorer Mission). Feel free to opine in favor of one of the past names, or propose a new name.

* Update on Data Challenge (Julian or Raphael, Lloyd unavailable)

* Update from the Technology WG - General discussion: how do we ensure that technologies that are not in the baseline Probe get proper mention and boost in the report. The long term goal is to ensure technology development support. Examples are KIDs, the 'other' readout system (whatever we end up baselining), HWP, lenses + ARCoat …

- Below is a list of concrete questions I sent the Tech WG. They can also report their work on these.

1. what is the plan for detector technology for the high frequency bands of the imager?

2. are the distribution of colors for pixels as described by the worksheet reasonable?

3. are the bandwidths assumed reasonable?

4. what should we assume about beam sizes as a function of frequency, specifically for the high frequency bands? Is it reasonable to assume single mode coupling all the way to the highest frequencies?

* Update from Imager - postponed for next week when Shaul is back

Jamie credited with writing notes back in June
Action items from last week:
- contact Kovac about a probe talk at Harvard S4 workshop (Shaul called)
- communicate with John Carlstrom to share resources with S4 (reply pending)
Primary work on spectrometer has been on foregrounds
Spectrometer has shallow sensitivity up to several THz
May offer some useful information for deep imager data over narrower range of frequencies
What is the utility of high-frequency data given things like decorrelation?
The spectrometer will provide good information on dust opacity and spectral index
It is less clear if this knowledge will prove useful at nK sensitivities
Can the effect of decorrelation be included in Al's simulation?
Shaul: what is the effect of mismatched angular resolution? Is there scope for increasing it?
Charles: we can't assume we will know the spectral properties of the dust
Question is does the spectrometer provide essential information for foreground removal?
Jamie: On the time-scale of October, we should base our decision on what science each instrument would deliver. The questions about complementarity on foregrounds is not something we are going to resolve by October, and it will be a challenge even by the end of the study.
Jamie: Can a probe-class spectrometer access useful phase space on inflation?
Al: Probably not, but I can quantify especially in combination with an imager.
Can we get a picture of MIDEX/PIXIE to get some idea of physical size?

Systematics working group has been collected, reviewing existing tools and knowledge.
Has gotten input from Colin Bischoff on S4 work.
Also a presentation from CORE.