2. High Level Comments Strengths  Pre-proposal – concise, compelling  Topic is timely  Major Activities are organized well and engages team effectively

3. First, my overall take on the proposal: It has strong components, but reads like an amalgam of disparate research interests. There is just too much in there and the connections not clear to me at several points. Is this “The life History of Hydrogen” or “What is Dark Matter/Dark Energy”? One simple theme needs to be fixed and used to streamline the proposal. Project Summary This is the most crucial part of the proposal as all of the panel will have to be excited by it (assuming the topical experts will each be excited by their pet Major Activity). This is where the “Big Question” needs to be posed clearly, and the reasons why ASU is the best place made clear. Secondly, the Outreach summary needs to be really distinctive. This is the place to say that Rogier’s Nebula Pillars image is on a million T shirts, Lawrence Krause and Paul Davies are famous as a popularizers of science and these people will drive the outreach. I like the theme of Dark Matter/Dark Energy: We don’t know what it is. Astronomers put observational constraints on it. Theorists model it. ASU will bring the biggest/best combination of the two fields together in one place. The best outside ideas will be drawn in via a series of “Beyond Center” workshops that will bring the most creative thinkers here to ASU. The last point is very important – as I look at the references, ASU is not presently the center of this universe, so making it the place the various far flung leaders want to to come and spend some time at is crucial.

4. Weaknesses A professional proposal writer would be very helpful? – Not concise in places, Too much conversational language – Introduction, “we will work on these problems” instead of “problems like these” Major Activities: identify the leaders, contributors, number of graduates and post docs at the top of each section. Administration and Management Plan: improve organization, include summary at top (clarify the role of Windhorst as the director, include who will lead each activity), specifically address NSF requirements, organize as a narrative, convey overall vision better: how will it be organized so that the sum is greater than the individual research parts) – Review Management Plans from ERCs and other recently funded NSF centers Identify the collaborators and their role in enhancing the center’s impact Why, specifically for this type of science, does it make sense to invest so much in one university’s research (as opposed to a more collaborative proposal)?

5. Weaknesses Specify WHAT the center will do in the summary and hence ASU is a great place for the center – move the WHAT to beginning of summary. – 3 rd paragraph does not clearly lay out what the center will do – clarify. Expand prior achievements (there’s a 5 page limit, currently use 1.5); you could include relevant, non-NSF supported research. Follow Full Proposal Preparation Instructions, especially sections 9 (shared facilities), 10 (collaborations), 11 (international collaborations), 12 (seed funding), 15 (letters of commitment) – Postdoc mentoring must be elaborated: how will you encourage them to work across disciplines? CAP-LTER may have a nice postdoc plan. – Follow NSF Guidelines more closely: for example, all references should include titles, and all biographical sketches should be consistent. – Data management plan needs to be included Under supplementary information, the role of the major participants must be clearly spelled out

6. Weaknesses Malhotra and Rhoads always mentioned together – need to be presented as individuals. Organize public outreach to take advantage of Krauss and Davies How to address the pre-proposal comment about including other leaders in the field: could propose annual workshop. Panel Summary: Address the last comment on the bottom of the page about the UKIRT time. Play down the ASU cheerleading? Reconfigure in such a way that ASU’s strengths are transparent: AKA this person will do this, and this person this, AND we’re all at ASU.

7. Additional Criteria Strong Management Plan Advisory Committee Organizational Structure and Functional plan Data Management Plan Plan for inclusion of international partners Computational and CyberInfx. capabilities Plan for implementation of Strategic Plan w/in 6 mo. Plan to develop metrics and milestones