Attendance: Shaul, Nick B., Amy T., Colin H., Jacques

Notes by: Karl Young

• Work toward Final Report
  • Schedule (see also main wiki page)
    • new deadline: Dec. 10
• Authors + Endorsers: send message now with a deadline?
• Current comments on text

Work toward Final Report

• Schedule (see also main wiki page) new deadline: Dec. 10
  • AT: Report needs to go through a full JPL release process. So JPL needs by Dec. 15th. JPL folks will do a final read-thru in parallel.
  • SH: Most concerned about getting all input from foregrounds work. Will contemplate how to move schedule. May just be final cut at on the 15th. Will update people soon.
  • SH: Any other constraints?
    • AT: Getting JPL reviewer feedback tomorrow.
    • SH: External reviewers, we asked by Nov. 10. But people may delay. Said review wasn't useful after Thanksgiving. Should realistically expect Nov. 10-20.

Authors + Endorsers: send message now with a deadline?

• SH: Planning to have 2 lists of people. Are we ready to point people to the draft and enlist endorsers?
  • Jacques: Gathering people takes time, so start now. But report would still benefit from polishing.
  • SH: True, problem is there is no upcoming clear milestone, so might as well release now.
    • And intermediate stages until Dec. 10 will likely be slightly rougher than current version.
  • Jacques: What about endorser list separate from report? Could have an evolving list.
  • AT: current cover page is more art, 2nd page is author list / endorser list.
    • SH: does this remove our 50 page limit?
    • AT: Jeff is checking with management (Rita) that cover page, author lists, TOC, references don't count toward 50 pg.
  • Jacques: How about just start gathering endorsers now? Decide what to do with list later. Add 'Draft' watermark? SH: yes, will do.

Current comments on text

• Jacques: Why so much science in text is not in STM?
  • SH: STM highlights primary science goals around which instrument is designed. But text covers all the broad science PICO can do. True that this distinction is not clear in the text. This needs to be explained better in text.
  • SH: Also NASA has very specific guidelines for STM. It's not a comprehensive science summary.
  • Jacques: example, 'how universe works' contracts to N_eff only. Could also have dark matter, dark energy, modified gravity . . .
  • SH: For the STM the criteria was to highlight a few high impact cases doable only by PICO. Not a comprehensive list.
    • Jacques: an example from Lenora (at Manchester). Added parameters beyond base lambdaCDM. Compared PICO constraints vs Planck constraints. PICO shrinks volume of parameter space by 10^7 – 10^10 (11-12 parameter model).
    • SH: We'll have to articulate how this is more than just improving constraints.
    • Jacques: Model constraint is a big argument. This is more compelling than sum of neutrino mass to me.
    • SH: Another entry is welcome. This STM is decided by the EC. So anyone can propose entry, refine through SH and AT. Then confirm in EC in about 2 weeks. This change could fit into the text.
      • Jacques: The challenge is the specific target, since there aren't models to rule in/out. SH: yes, agreed.
• AT: would be useful to connect the text and STM more. Point specific text sections to STM. Make a closer tie and ensure we're covering everything. Also could help prioritize what to keep, we're over page limits currently.
  • SH: yes, agreed. I've started working on this.
• Martin White comments
  • Currently organized by technique not science. Science cases are spread around oddly sometimes.
    • SH: I agree with this.
    • AT: Mission proposals are typically organized by the STM entries. Could help.
      • SH: Probably not. Example: f_nl. inflation is in STM, but with only r, n_s. f_nl is also an inflation probe, but not in STM. So would it not be in this section?
      • AT: No, we're not saying something so different. Would be sections organized by STM line, but a given section would include more inputs than the STM. So the 'inflation' section would be r, n_s, and f_nl.
      • SH: ok, this makes sense then. AT/SH: need to fit this in with page counts.
  • What about kSZ and velocity fields?
    • CH: On its own PICO is not competitive. resolution is too low. But synergy with ground is very good. PICO channels can clean high frequency and ground gives resolution.
    • Jacques: making the point that PICO enables more kSZ and velocity fields is good. Even if PICO can't do it alone.
    • CH: Will add a bit of text about compton-Y cross correlations. Will address some of Martin's comment.
  • Other comments?
    • Jacques: Do we say anything about n_t? Would only apply for some r above the detection limit.
      • SH: Thought paper from Doddleson showed that for low r (<0.001) it is very hard to get any constraints on n_t. Don't know that we can make a strong statement.
      • Jacques: n_t is a handle on proving B-modes are inflationary or from some other source.
      • SH: need someone to suggest a couple sentences, then run by Rafael and similar. Jacques?