1. Upgrade PO M. Tyndel, MIWG Review plans p1 Nov 1 st, CERN Module integration Review – Decision process  Information will be gathered for each concept and organised as follows: 1.External requirements and constraints (to be supplied by review panel) 2.Performance parameters (to be supplied for each concept for review) 3.Engineering implications/external requirements (to be developed together with the engineers) 4.Cost (to be supplied for each concept for review) 5.Risk (to be supplied for each concept for review)  When the information is complete the concepts will be ranked according to performance, cost and risk. A recommendation will be made by the review panel based on these orderings

2. Upgrade PO M. Tyndel, MIWG Review plans p2 Nov 1 st, CERN 1. External requirements & Constraints 1. This list is the set of requirements which must be met. The approach taken in this review is to have this as a minimal set allowing the concepts to bring out the performance figures of merit in section 2 below and the implications on the support structure, assembly and interfaces in section 3 (technical specs). The cost implications are provided in sections 4 and 5. 1.Stereo measurement precision (16mm(rf), 500mm(z); max separation between planes?) 1.Need to describe here how the precision is maintained over the full tracking volume (assembly precision, survey, stability, monitoring, alignment) Very early concepts only possible, no serious engineering possible 2.Readout and electronics based on system architecture document & consistent with options under evaluation. Supply details of: Essentially same for both options, irrelevant to comparison 1.Grounding scheme 2.Powering scheme(s) 3.Monitoring 3.Compatibility with reuse of existing services Essentially same for both options, irrelevant to comparison 1.Requirement for any new services to be detailed 4.Radiation qualification of all materials and assemblies. Dose depends on position inside the volume. Essentially same for both options, irrelevant to comparison 1.Describe qualification measurements (Specify dose, radiation type and measurements to be done) 5.Compatibility with trigger requirements - rf position of strips know to 200mm? Design to this requirement. Essentially same for both options, irrelevant to comparison

3. Upgrade PO M. Tyndel, MIWG Review plans p3 Nov 1 st, CERN 2. Performance 2. The approach followed in this review is to obtain a realistic estimate of the expected performance. Input should be supplied by the proponents. The uniformity of the assumptions will be checked by the reviewers. Until prototypes have been built the performance figures will have to be based on calculation. The review panel will require that the same values are used for material parameters and would encourage groups to cross-check FEA calculations. 1.Material per tracking layer in radiation lengths including 1.Module/stave Possible 2.Overlaps to achieve hermeticity below Possible 3.Attachments to external support structure & assumed support structure Concept only, can be similar for both options 4.Attachments to cooling, the cooling pipe including connections Possible apart from some connections, should be same for both options 5.Electrical connectors and intermediate services (i.e. services inside solenoid) Not possible or relevant to comparison 2.Hermeticity of each layer i.e. fraction of tracks fully measured Possible 1.Give numbers for the minimum and maximum radius 2.Allow for finite size interaction region (z) 3.Calculate for 1 GeV tracks having 2D hits 3.Precison achieved for the whole tracker (see requirement 1.1.1) Not possible 4.Thermal run-away margin Possible

4. Upgrade PO M. Tyndel, MIWG Review plans p4 Nov 1 st, CERN 3. Engineering implications/external requirements 3. This section collects together the specification of the support structure required and the intermediate services and connections to these services. Intermediate refers to the services inside the solenoid 1.External support structure, services & assembly. 1. Specification of any external support structure required to provide the necessary stability for module/stave – rigidity, time, temperature & humidity dependence. Not possible, practically same for both options, not relevant to comparison 2.Specification of the intermediate services and the connections and connectors required. Should include cooling, electrical and optical interfaces Impossible, not relevant to comparison 3.Specification of the assembly & testing of module/staves to external support structure and services What does this mean? 4.Survey requirements during and after assembly – number of measurements and precision Possible 5.Any requirements for position or stability monitoring Very conceptual only 2.Cooling requirements: 1.Cooling temperature for end of life operation (all material properties assumed to be supplied to check for consistency) Possible 2.Environmental gas requirements i.e. how much power is transferred to gas?) Irrelevant at this stage

5. Upgrade PO M. Tyndel, MIWG Review plans p5 Nov 1 st, CERN 4. Costs 4. This section collects the costs associated with the prototyping and production of the stave assemblies. In addition it compares the ‘external’ requirements listed above in section 3. 1.External support structure & assembly. 1. Cost and cost of any external support structure required to provide the necessary stability for module/stave – rigidity, time, temperature & humidity dependence (3.1.1). 2.Cost of the intermediate services and the connections and connectors required. Should include cooling, electrical and optical interfaces(3.1.2) 3.Cost or time estimate of the assembly & testing of module/staves to external support structure and services(3.1.3) 4.Cost or time estimate of the Survey requirements during and after assembly – number of measurements and precision (3.1.4) 5.Cost of any requirements for position or stability monitoring (3.1.5) 2.Cooling requirements: 1.Cost of providing cooling capacity and temperature for end of life operation (all material properties assumed to be supplied to check for consistency) 2.Cost of providing environmental gas requirements i.e. how much power is transferred to gas?) 3.Module/Stave assembly cost. Include all components specific to the module/stave concept (but not sensors, ASICs). Provide description of assembly process including QC. Include: 1.List of materials incl. number of parts and cost 1.Are parts common to all both sides and all module types? 2.List of tooling and estimated cost 3.List of assembly and QC steps and complexity of QC 4.Time needed to prepare and qualify assembly site(s) 1.Identify if existing facilities can be re-used 5.Estimate of work and/or cost of the assembly 1.Centralised or multiple assembly sites? 2.Scope for industrial assembly and/or automation 6.Estimate of the assembly yield 7.Options for rework 4.Cost and time needed for prototyping programme Rough estimate possible Serious costing, not possible. Could do simple schedule and work flow

6. Upgrade PO M. Tyndel, MIWG Review plans p6 Nov 1 st, CERN 5. Risks 5. For each of these items establish the probability of the risk occurring and the consequences 1.Identify components which are ‘single-source’ Possible 2.List components or assembly steps which need qualification before they can be adopted e.g. Partly possible, but prioritized to emphasize “new” 1.New materials 2.Gluing directly to sensors 3.Validation of assembled Sensor performance 4.Validation of assembled ASIC performance 3.How deep is the assembly pipeline? i.e. what level of prototyping effort is required to fully validate design? Can describe how one gets to production, very conceptually 4.Risk due to tight mechanical tolerances during assembly Possible 5.Grounding & shielding risks (by external experts) e.g. 1.How to validate for full system 6.Risk due to failures or damage. Consider damage/repair scenarios Possible at simple level 1.Damaged module/stave 2.Damage during assembly of module/staves to structures 3.Failed cooling channel after assembly 4.Failed cable after assembly 5.Failure after integration into ATLAS