Attendance: Dave C., Shaul H., Charles L., Colin H., Tim P.

Notes by: Karl

• Decadal Panel nominations due by January 22
• Report latest version
  • outstanding item
    • SH: implement comments from amy, Charles, finish new Section 2.4 (see next), small modification in Fnl, add sentences in ES for testing LCDM (+ blue sky?), finish ES sentences regarding 'why now'
    • RF: one sentence to clean up in ES
  • New Section 2.4, page 16: Test LCDM (includes large scale anomalies)
    • Comments? Any other anomalies?
    • We'll have to be more economic about space elsewhere
  • How to discuss 'technology maturity'

Report latest version

• outstanding items
  • SH: implement comments from Amy, Charles, finish new Section 2.4 (see next), small modification in Fnl, add sentences in ES for testing LCDM (+ blue sky?), finish ES sentences regarding 'why now'
  • RF: one sentence to clean up in ES
  • CH: Jens and Mattieu asked about some relativistic SZ material?
    • SH: We are now a page long (due to section 2.4) so decide after we decide on 2.4.
      • CH: he is right that this is a niche for PICO, so a useful point. But can certainly be shortened.
        • SH: No quantitative constraints? CH: correct. that has not been done.
      • SH: Will have a look at it
      • CH: I will make a shorter version*
• New Section 2.4, page 16: Test LCDM (includes large scale anomalies)
  • Comments? Any other anomalies?
  • SH: Should there be a 'blue-sky' sentence? Other possible discoveries . . .? Don't know how
  • CL: Don't like 'reasonably good fit'. Way better for just CMB data + LCDM. Fit is worse if you include BAO, SN, etc. Last line says PICO will give definitive answer, but the tension with SN H0 numbers will likely still exist. Seems like logic isn't quite consistent.
    • SH: We are mentioning the systematics possibility. Could say 'good fit' not 'reasonably'.
    • SH: The additional point that even if CMB is self consistent there may still be tension with other data sets (real or systematic errors). Not sure how to address.
  • CH: Is a useful thing to point out. Current text may be a bit longer than needed.
    • SH: Highlighting where to cut would be very useful.
    • CH: e.g. 1st paragraph sounds more like a broad, philosophical discussion. not really needed here.
      • CL: agree.
    • SH: This 1st paragraph could move to someplace like the ES. Can put some of this there. Need to anyway. Then prune 2.4 slightly.
  • CL: “no detection of DM” –> “no direct detection”
  • We'll have to be more economic about space elsewhere
• How to discuss 'technology maturity' (point from CL). Last sentences of 2nd to last paragraph in ES.
  • CL: This is better. No possible objection if remove 'simple'. Either way this is much improved.
  • SH: Wanting to show that no new physics or new technology needs to be made for this to work.
  • CL: I understand. But example of nothing is simple in space, 100 GHz planck. Didn't work for various reasons that don't apply here. It was a simple extension that failed.
    • CL: people with space experience will say “if you haven't done it, you haven't done it.”
    • SH: could replace 'simple' with something that better explains no fundamental breakthroughs are needed. Just scaling. will do so
      • CL: sounds good.

CL: Question for Tim, have you finished a detailed edit?

• TP: Currently through section 2. Don't have much more time to work on this, but will do so as I can.
• CL: Will start listing detailed comments

CL: Cool cover.

• SH: Yes. I have received requests for this cover without PICO. Should coordinated with JPL what we share to all.
• CL: Deserves wide distribution. It's so cool.

In principle 1 telecon in 2 weeks Otherwise done. Will only call telecons as needed.