1. Status of the Request for R&D money for the NA61 - SAVD M. Deveaux, Goethe University Frankfurt

2. Facts on the proposal 2 Funding requested to: DFG Deadline of the Proposal: NONE, one round per 6 Month Preparation of the proposal: December 2014 Decision: 15. July 2015 (rejection) Challenge during preparation: DFG is traditionally not funding CERN or FAIR related projects (except of NA61). Open if proposal is rejected for formal reasons. Avoid impression of a CBM Co-Funding. DFG provides funding for experiments, not for installations. Personally my first proposal.

3. Facts on the proposal 3 Strategy of the proposal: Claim to aim for immedeate D0-measurements. Introduce NA61 as add-on to the SAVD (not vice versa). Show simulation results (by Pawel) to prove feasibility. Introduce technological concept of SAVD Interpret the SAVD as a technology, which is being abandoned by CBM due to insufficient rate capability. Ressources requested: 70kEUR travel costs and material. 2x PhD, 6 Months Post-Doc (Following the recommendation of a member of the board, we were choosing a little higher number).

4. Criticism of the referees M. Deveaux, NA-61 Collaboration Meeting, October 2013 4 Organisatorical: Time scale (official project start July, first beam time November) considered to agressive. Missing information on alternative / later beam times Missing proposal to the CERN SPSC committee. Physics case: Physics case introduced based on literature from 1999 – 2001. Referee claims that progress was ignored. Physics case not suited for 2 PhD (too small to provide input).

5. Criticism of the referees M. Deveaux, NA-61 Collaboration Meeting, October 2013 5 Feasibility (reconstruction): The feasibility study is attacked as the author is unknown and as the results are not published. The feasibility study is attacked as it is not clearly enough described to judge its validity. Feasibility (technology): Beam loss protection: The availability of suited moving tables is questioned. The problem is considered as underestimated. The data sparsification and triggering – scheme remained unclear to the referees… and was therefore criticised.

6. Criticism of the referees M. Deveaux, NA-61 Collaboration Meeting, October 2013 6 Feasibility (reconstruction): The feasibility study is attacked as the author is unknown and as the results are not published. The feasibility study is attacked as it is not clearly enough described to judge its validity. Results shown were inconsistent. Sometimes Pb+Pb, sometimes Ar + Ca was claimed. Feasibility (technology): Beam loss protection: The availability of suited moving tables is questioned. The problem is considered as underestimated. The data sparsification and triggering – scheme remained unclear to the referees… and was therefore criticised.

7. Positive points M. Deveaux, NA-61 Collaboration Meeting, October 2013 7 Physics case: Physics case is recognized as being of high interest. Team competence: It is recognized that a competent collaboration was formed and that IKF has the means to carry out its tasks. Recommendations: Referee 1: Review the proposal and resubmit Between the lines: Naive start of a promising project. Referee 2: Feasibility of open charm production not shown. Feasibility study (technological and simulation) is realistic. Proposes funding 1 PhD + 30kEUR, 120kEUR in total. Conclusion of the board: Interesting project, but not yet mature. Needs review before funding is possible

8. My personal conclusion M. Deveaux, NA-61 Collaboration Meeting, October 2013 8 Surprisingly good quality of the review. Referees are insiders. No fundamental objections against funding the SAVD. Need to respond to technological questions: Easy to do as solutions exist but were badly communicated Need to solve formal issues: We had feasibility study in mind, modified to obtain polish money. Why not coming back to it? Request to CERN SPSC committee is being drafted. Commissioning may be carried out with p-p (frequently available) Follow-up beam times should be named.

9. My personal conclusion M. Deveaux, NA-61 Collaboration Meeting, October 2013 9 Criticism to simulation should be taken serious: So far mostly stand alone simulation  Simulate with NA61 simulator and digitizer. Open issue: Seemingly no tracking suited for non-homogenious magnetic fields available.  Needs to be fixed by NA61 (no know how at IKF).  CBM tracking not suited, team unflexible and understaffed. Strategy: Fix most open issues (tracking will take time), call it a feasibility study and resubmit latest by December (earlier if possible).