Attendance: Amy, Dave, Nick, Dan, Bill, Hannes

Notes by:

• Review of I+T Plan (Bill)
• TeamX Comments (see last telecon notes)
• Report Status, Schedule + External Advisory Board
  • Sept. 1 First draft (first round of text + key figures)
  • October 1: 2nd draft
  • October 30: 3rd draft; semi-final
  • Nov. 1: submit to external review
  • Nov. 10: receive external review comments
  • Nov. 10 - Nov 30: implement external review changes
  • Dec. 1-15: final review
  • Dec. 31, 2018 - Submit.

• Review of Report Schedule as listed above
• Shaul: there is an issue with absence of thermal model. We don't know the heat loads on various elements, we don't know the temperatures. Dilemma - what to do with noise predictions. There are two paths: 1. Thermal model is finalized very soon; 2. use what we have now, generate best case estimate we have, key figures of merit, and revise after another round after thermal model.
• Amy: suggest to use newer more conservative temperatures, set requirements. Final numbers are not likely to change very much.
• Dan: r depends on detailed noise calculations, but high-l science not so much
• Dave: much of Galactic science depends on resolution, not detailed noise. So not such a big issue
• Nick: Doesn't think there would be significant impact on extra-galactic. “We have enough that can write text now”. Nick and Marcelo would write reionization. Gianfranco = sources. Colin and Jim Clusters. Alex = lensing.
• Shaul discusses outside reviewers. Amy says that JPL will enlist reviewers. Shaul: we should make sure we have reviewers from outside our community. Requests suggestions for outside reviewers.

• Discussion of I+T. TeamX did not reflect our I&T properly. Reasons have been discussed before. The goal is to review and check whether we are satisfied with our current plan. Amy will need to work with I&T person to insert the proper information. Amy explains that I&T doesn't appear in one place. It is distributed in a number of places.
• Bill reviews his previous I&T slides. Same slides as of several months ago.
• Need to build a facility to test full focal plane. Shaul comments that this is not unusual. Think SPT-3G.
• Another new element: “full payload testing”. Was expensive for Planck. Shaul asks what do we want to measure and whether there is a simple way to do this, for example without cooling primary to its final temperature. Answer: noise. Suggestion: cap the stop with an appropriate load?
• Bill: Planck detectors were forgiving. Shaul: safety factor plays that role.
• Bill: we still need a chamber. The cost of load to do similar tests for Planck was very high.
• Amy: we should include these slides from Bill into TeamX. We want Bill on the phone with the TeamX person. We need to get that person on the phone.
• Shaul: TeamX cost background: they don’t know how to do unique things, if unique, they don’t know what to do. Even if it’s cheaper.
• Amy: they are conservative, they want to be consistent from study to study.

• Other TeamX Wrap-up items. Amy: did read many comments. Better discuss them offline.