Hybrid Status/Deliveries Prior to new deliveries, 75 bonded hybrids in hand New deliveries 127 TOB SS4 75 for UCSB build, 52 for FNAL 23 TEC R6, 12 TEC R5, 12 TEC R2 (to FNAL) In Air 48 TOB SS4 (to FNAL) 24 TEC R6, 12 TEC R5 (stereo), 12 TEC R2 (stereo-to FNAL) In pipeline 160 TOB SS6 (UCSB/FNAL) More TEC of R2, R5, R6

Production Plans Jan 26-Feb 6 150 SS4 Modules Feb 7-27 50-60 TEC R6 Modules March 1-5 75 SS6 Modules Hybrids to FNAL ~150 SS4 Hybrids (starting ~Feb 9) ~80 SS6 Hybrids (Early March) 12 TEC R2, 12 TEC R2 Stereo (Early February)

Hybrid Testing Update Tested 60 bonded SS4 hybrids 0 shorts, 0 opens 2 PLL failures at -20 C Same as seen at CERN 2 APV deaths 1 not studies thoroughly 1 does not reset 2 possible reasons why During production, wire bonds to APV hybrid FE misplaced (between bond pads) in first bonding attempt Chip has 3 AL strips on PA delaminate during bonding. Had to be re-bonded. Second bond may have damage APV

US Sensor Note All figures/latex files available at hep.ucsb.edu/cms/UStesting.html Describes all testing results of sensor re-probing, module CMN problem, and studies Will have accompanying short summary note (2-3 pages) of questions/answers/conclusions Needs to answer questions collaboration has about what we are seeing

Assorted Concerns Is this a production problem? Details of FNAL production/data would shed light on this FNAL/UCSB production slightly different Also TEC data from Karlsruhe/Aachen Is the problem only seen in certain batches? Statistics of full US data will answer this Is there time-evolution of sensors? Are new batches much better? Re-probing of all sensors in US will help greatly to answer this Data from production week 39, 2002-now especially important Will be able to better constrain time constant model Is there a correlation between CMN/wafer position? At UCSB, yes Due to how sensor placement chosen at UCSB FNAL picked sensors differently, so correlation should be different That is why we need to know which sensor has problem Are sensor current increases up to 5 mA safe? All sensors with >5 mA increase causes problem in UCSB production At least 5 had lower current increases FNAL data will double statistics

New Combination Results Added 98 sensors from UR reprobing (2001-2002) Added 93 sensors from UCSB reprobing (2003) Waiting on FNAL info Sensor Quarter Number Tested >1.5 mA >5 mA % >1.5 mA % >5 mA 2001-4 140 17 14 12.1% 10.0% 2002-1 202 19 15 9.4% 7.4% 2002-2 156 9.6% 9.0% 2002-3 49 3 6.1% 0.0% 2002-4 41 1 7.3% 2.4% 2003-1 86 6 7.0% 3.5% 2003-2 95 2 3.2% 2.1% 2003-3 20

Fit to Rate of Change R(t)=A*(1-exp(-t/B)) A=0.125 B=1.5 Years

Current Necessary for CMN Problem A small increase in bias current may cause CMN problem For CMN modules built prior to re-probing, the difference between the module current and sum of the QTC sensor measurement used as the DI of sensor FNAL expected/measured Ibias very useful to plot