1. 1 Status of the BCD GDE Area System Leaders Meeting (Jan.19-20, 2006) Nobu Toge (KEK)

2. 2 Content Updates since Frascati European Sample Site section was updated on Dec.22, 2006. No other content revisions have been submitted. The same file repository is being used at http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php ?id=bcd:bcd_home http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php ?id=bcd:bcd_home Conversion into MSWord files is on its way (FNAL efforts).

3. 3 Comments Gathered on Dec.2005 version of BCD “Requests for comments” was circulated on Dec.19, 2005. Compiled set of comments are archived at http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php ?id=bcd:postfrascaticomments (see hand- out). http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php ?id=bcd:postfrascaticomments “Consolidated Change Requests” is NOT done (difficulty with doing this without concrete guidelines).

4. 4 Change Control Procedure Draft v.0.3 was circulated within GDE on Jan.7, 2006. Three classes, 0, 1 and 2. –Class 0 : Minor updates –Class 1 : Significant replacement but with cost impacts below ~100M$ –Class 2 : Major replacement / addition with cost impacts exceeding ~ 100M$ Exponential escalation of seriousness of the review processes for Class 0  1  2 (continued)

5. 5 Issues with Change Control Many colleagues suggested that Class 0 procedure should be eased up so it takes < 1 week (with 1 reviewer etc. See more on this later).  I concur. Some “changes” with not-so-big (or not- accurately known) cost impacts may need to be considered as Class-2. Class 1, 2 changes will have a turn-around time of approx 1 month. With this in mind, –Some pre-scheduling may be worth considering.  Have to check the overall schedule. – Perhaps only the EC/AG/GG/ST leaders should be “authorized” to submit Change Requests? (Other inputs to be treated as “comments” or “suggestions”)

6. 6 Issues with BCD (1/2) What exactly is BCD supposed to contain? http://www.linearcollider.org/cms/?pid=1000104. told us to include the following: http://www.linearcollider.org/cms/?pid=1000104 –Overview - single, short summary, including: Description of boundary conditions Options under consideration Summary justification of BC –Baseline Description Lattice Files Parameter Tables Supporting Documentation Cost Estimation –Alternatives

7. 7 Issues with BCD (2/2) Not all sections actually have their contents organized in the way EC told us to do. The three bullet organization for BCD from EC might not be the optimum, after all. What we ought to have in BCD **might** be – –Overview - single, short summary, including: Subsystem functional descriptions Subsystem specifications (or their parametric ranges) and interfacing boundary conditions Options under consideration Summary justification of BC –Baseline Description including unit schematic diagrams Lattice Files Parameter Tables (with ranges, if necessary) Critical R&D milestones to clear Brief component-level specifications (with ranges) Component count Supporting Documentation Cost Estimation –Alternatives R&D milestones to clear before being promoted to BC

8. 8 Observations Not all contents for BCD will be readily available before starting RDR, particularly if its contents-organization is augmented as in the previous slide (p.7). Obviously we need to work interactively between BCD and RDR –Some work results go to BCD –Some other work results go to RDR To make it function, we have to –Be very good at traffic-controlling, –Be very clear about task sharing and task division, –Retain “low impedance” in the Change Procedure, particularly for Class 0 items.

9. 9 Toge’s Assessment While a large number of design-choice issues have been resolved since Snowmass, we had better take one more serious look at the basic contents organization for BCD. Whichever path we take (revise the contents organization all the way, partially, or none), we have to develop a clear agreement among ourselves on the contents, task sharing and task division, To which we firmly commit ourselves.