1. MSSL * A.N. Fazakerley, I. Rozum, N. Doss, B. Mihaljcic & the PEACE ops team PEACE CAA Action Items Status 11 th CAA Cross Calibration Meeting, 7 – 9 April 2010, Goslar, Germany

2. Action Items MSSL CC8-AI-22 to CIS/PEACE (due date: 10 th Cross-Cal): to include a quality factor to their moments data to filter out poor quality data, e.g., when only noise is observed by CIS due to low ion flux measurements, when one can assume strong noise from photoelectrons in PEACE, etc. The quality factor needs to be specified also in the user guide IN PROGRESS Status PartialCoverage quality flag will flag moments to show if the energy distribution is fully captured or not (this was presented at the PEACE team meeting). Other examples include Status CountStats. These are in development. No significant changes since Cross-Cal-10 meeting

3. Action Items MSSL CC8-AI-24 to PEACE (due: 31 Jan 2009): to investigate the EFW comparisons and to explain the particularly large deviations during the events on pages 25, 26, 28, 33, 34, 37, 42, 43, 45, 47 (see plots in document CrossCal8-Annex5-EFW) OPEN We have checked individual intervals for photo-electron contamination, which can give discrepancies observed by the EFW, in the PEACE data delivered to the CAA by comparing PEACE and WHISPER densities. We obtained excellent agreement between PEACE and WHISPER densities which means that there is no photo-electron contamination. PEACE Spectra were inspected using the same settings as used to calculate moments for CAA and there was no evidence of photoelectrons in the energy range used for the moments. Detailed examination of the data revealed a time aliasing effect between the two PEACE sensors, resulting in distorted moments. Many of the events highlighted by the EFW team show evidence of this time aliasing between the LEEA and HEEA sensors. Other cases have not been examined carefully yet, but not all can be explained by time aliasing. Investigation is in progress, some results were presented at the 9th Cross-Calibration meeting. No significant changes since Cross-Cal-10 meeting

4. Action Items MSSL CC8-AI-31 to PEACE (due 31 Aug 2009): to clarify the definition of Quality Flag, i.e., when does the flag get a value of 1 OPEN This action is related to the Status_PitchAngleSelection quality flag. The definition of flag settings has changed and the final definition will be included in the second release of the PEACE User Guide. This AI will be closed when the definition is done and included in the User Guide. UG update still due, but parameters are defined and files have been prepared

5. Action Items MSSL PEA08-AI-5 to PEACE (due 31 Dec 2008): to provide the correct order of datasets for the inventory plots Proposed to be closed Issue was discussed at recent PEA/CAA meeting at MSSL

6. Action Items MSSL PEA08-AI-6 to PEACE (due: 15 Jan 2009): to describe in the user guide the usage of quality information about how to filter the measurements and show an example what happens if you do not do this. OPEN Will be improved in second release. The User Guide partially satisfies this action, but further improvements are planned. No significant progress since last meeting

7. Action Items MSSL PEA09-AI-8 to PEACE (due: 11 th Cross-Cal): to study the data gap on 17 March 2001, 03:40 – 04:00 UT (page 9 in Annex 1) OPEN ? We checked delivered PEACE data and did not see any data gaps during this time interval.

8. MSSL 2009 CAA Peer Review Recommendations R1 to all teams: The review board would like to commend the teams on their effort to provide data to the CAA in a timely manner. The delivery schedule requires that data to the end of 2009 be ingested into the CAA by May 2010, and the board expects that teams will adhere to this schedule. Teams should recognize that the current mission ends soon and should be preparing for this eventuality. ONGOING Currently the PEACE team is working on the delivering 2001-2007 data to the CAA. Calibration improvements, especially for CL-3 and CL-4, is the main problem with the 2008-2009 data generation. Progress on calibration, but still ongoing

9. MSSL 2009 CAA Peer Review Recommendations R2 to all teams: The board would like to re-iterate that the CAA represents the final and full repository of Cluster data, and that every effort should be made by instrument teams to include all, best-calibrated data possible. ONGOING The PEACE team is taking this into account. R3 to all teams: The board notes that the peer review process undertaken in 2009 was valuable. The board recommends that the CAA instrument teams attempt to address and implement recommendations from the peer review to the level that is feasible within the existing resources. ONGOING The PEACE team makes every effort to implement recommendations. still ongoing

10. MSSL 2009 CAA Peer Review Recommendations R12 to all teams: The instrument UG s are an essential tool for the CAA end user. The board is pleased to note the development of these guides by the instrument teams as requested by the last review. However, the board notes that some of the guides could be improved by making them more complete, self-contained, readable and usable. For instance, full description of quality flags should be included, with diagrammatic examples of caveats where appropriate; plots of specific examples taken from the CAA graphical output would be most useful for the user. The board requests that all UG are brought up to a consistent standard. OPEN R14 to all teams: The board commends the inter-instrument cross-calibration efforts that have been undertaken, believing that this is the best route to producing high-quality data. The board recommends that these cross-calibrations activities continue and the results to be presented in the calibration report. ONGOING The PEACE team carry on cross-cal activities with the WHISPER, WBD and EFW teams. Both still ongoing

11. MSSL 2009 CAA Peer Review Recommendations R15 to CAA & all teams: The board urges that the CAA and the teams seek additional support to continue quality assurance and archiving of the Double Star data ONGOING The DAA work has began although on the “best effort” basis. Ongoing, some progess, separate presentation

12. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-PEA01 to PEACE: The UG needs to be tailored more to the general user. It needs to avoid use of a lot of specific instrument terminology and have its language more oriented towards products in the CAA – instrument specifics are only confusing/meaningless to a general user. Such language can more be used in the ICD and CR (but remember to include their definitions) OPEN PR09-PEA02 to PEACE: The team is recommended to include the high-level summary of highlights and limitations. While most of the important aspects of the instruments performance and its caveats are covered but dispersed throughout the docs, the main advantages and disadvantages of the PEACE instrument concept should be discussed up- front – such as highlighting the fact that PEACE can provide detailed sub-spin resolution distributions, but also pointing out the main limitations (photoelectron contamination, degrading MCP efficiency, penetrating backgrounds, etc.) OPEN No significant progress on UG

13. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-PEA03 to PEACE: Split the UG into “normal” and “advanced” user sections. Given the complexity of the instrument the UG should be re-ordered to target a “normal” and “advanced” user. Start of with a very simple “starters part” that covers only the most common products that are available most of the time (3DR). The advanced part should provide info on the range of burst mode products, but avoid excessive details but rather refer the reader to the appropriate section in ICD. PR09-ALL08 to all teams: The CAA plans to provide a “simple” and “advanced” user interface. The simple version would hide many of the data complexities and allow access to an instrument’s most common and basic data products, while the advanced interface would basically be what is provided now. The Instrument User Guides should be restructured to reflect this. BOTH OPEN No significant progress on UG

14. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-PEA04 to PEACE: The datasets contain many flags which is good but they need to be explained. A table or list of all the anticipated flags should be included in the UG, together with a brief explanation. There is mention of an “overall quality flag” which should be aimed at the “simple” user to allow simple data choices – the meaning of this flag should be clearly defined in the UG. PR09-ALL14 to all teams: All teams should include flags in their data to indicate usability. For teams that already do, there are also should be some indication as to what quality flag value is acceptable for general science use. BOTH OPEN No significant progress on UG; We have quality flags, suggest close AI 14

15. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-PEA05 to PEACE: Show graphics examples of caveats in the UG and CR. In order to guide the user in understanding of many of the instrument caveats, a set of example plots showing the effects of penetrating radiation, photo-electron contamination, etc. on the data products would be useful. More details on the methods used for correcting the data would be useful. Photo-electrons are removed using sc potential from EFW – how reliable is that? Effects of EDI ops on PEACE data – what does that look like in the data? PR09-ALL01 to all teams: The UG should inform the user about the instrument saturation in specific plasma regions and on the importance of using data when the instrument is in the right mode. One needs to add plots in the UG to show what the user should see when processing data files and also to illustrate data quality issues (eg. incorrect instrument mode, interferences, difficult calibration task, etc.). In general the UG needs to show illustrative examples of many of the instrument “issues” that the user needs to be aware of. BOTH OPEN No significant progress on UG

16. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-PEA06 to PEACE: Expand and move up recommendations section closer to the front of the guide and be expand it similar to the Table 6.2 in the CIS guide, that includes recommendations of which product is most appropriate for a given magnetospheric region. OPEN No significant progress on UG

17. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-PEA07 to PEACE: Some PEACE 3D products contain pitch angles, others contain background information, and its is not clear why. It is also not clear how these background values are inferred, or how they are to be used. The UG makes clear that background values are not taken out for the moments calculation – why not? Is there a flag that indicated periods for the moments that are likely to be dominated by background? PEACE requires magnetic field data at energy-sweep step resolution timing, requiring additional processing of lower-time resolution magnetic field data. How is this done, and are there associated caveats? The UG and ICD should include a description and example of how a user should take CAA FGM data and map it to the PEACE 3D product. The Pitch angle products are useful but a user will want to create their own bin width and perhaps an angle-angle type plot with PA contours. This cannot be done with the “new” PEACE datasets. OPEN Some issues closed

18. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-PEA08 to PEACE: While the PEACE calibration report is quite thorough a notable omission is a detailed inter-calibration report on the two PEACE parts – LEEA and HEEA. Further missing are a long-time inter-calibration history, and inter-spacecraft calibration. OPEN PR09-PEA09 to PEACE: Value judgment on density moments match: The inter-calibration generally shows “good” agreement of MOMENTS densities with WHISPER. Given the basic limitations of a particle instrument (delivering partial moments) there should be some guide to the general user as to when and where the moments derived are likely to be most reliable, and this information should be captured by a quality flag. OPEN No significant progress on UG/CR

19. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-PEA10 to PEACE: History of  0: The calibration report has a thorough explanation and history of the on-board MCP test used to balance the MCP detectors, but little on how often the absolute efficiency is calibrated and on how the  0 parameter varies over the mission. Fig. shows how this parameter can be determined from comparisons to WHISPER. However, given the fact that PEACE measures partial moments, there should always be some difference between the two measurements – so to find  0, what time periods are used? PEACE probably measures the most complete moments during ASPOC ops, indicating that those periods should be used to determine  0. OPEN No significant progress on UG/CR

20. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-PEA11 to PEACE: In C*_CP_PEA_PITCH_SPIN_DEFlux, COORDINATE_SYSTEM= “SR2” is assigned for START_VARIABLE= Sweep_PitchAngle which is incorrect as they are in the magnetic field coordinate system. It is suggested an additional coordinate system be added to the Meta data dictionary. OPEN PR09-PEA12 to PEACE: Make sure the directions of the instrument angles, pitch angles, and angles in GSE are clearly described (i.e. into or out of the detector). OPEN No significant progress on UG/CR

21. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-ALL02 to all teams: It is highly important to provide the user with caveat information and its existence should clearly be stated in the UG. For nearly all datasets there is a reference to dataset caveats (C*_CQ_*) but in nearly all cases no such datasets exist. These datasets should either be provided or the reference should be changed to datasets that exist OPEN PR09-ALL03 to all teams: Most of the instrument ICDs are out of date and the teams need to have an urgent and careful updating process of the ICDs very soon. OPEN No significant progress on ICD

22. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-ALL04 to all teams: Spacecraft inter-calibration: it seems that almost all teams mention nothing with regard to use of multiple spacecraft data. The teams should be candid about the utility and limitations of their data for this purpose. This would require a more detailed assessment of the instrument’s inter-spacecraft calibration fidelity, including some attempt at specifying the instrument’s error bars. The idea here is to give a general user an upfront assessment of the utility of the data to provide info on spatial gradients (possible or not? What scales can actually be resolved?) PR09-ALL06 to all teams: The inter-calibration effort is still on-going and many of the reports are preliminary. However, missing from the calibration report is a missing-long assessment of the inter-calibration fidelity. BOTH OPEN No significant progress on UG/CR

23. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-ALL05 to all teams: There is almost no discussion of data errors/standard deviations, and that assessment of instrument quality is at best qualitative (“good” or “bad” agreement on instrument cross-cal). OPEN PR09-ALL07 to all teams: There are some general aspects of CLUSTER ops that will not be obvious to future users of the data – but it’s the CLUSTER mode of ops that explains and drives the multiple mode and product strategy of the particle instruments. This should be explained at a high level on the CAA, and in its more specific implementation for each instrument – i.e. mention the CLUSTER science plan that provides for specific regions and switching into specific modes in an attempt to be in the “best” mode for boundary crossing, solar wind, sheath, etc. One of the main problems here is “region/mode mismatch”, which can cause a lot of confusion for a general user. The CAA or instrument teams are encouraged to investigate ways to indicate to the user the periods for which such region/mode mismatches exist. OPEN No significant progress on UG/CR

24. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-ALL09 to all teams: There are further plans for the CAA to provide a set of on-going cross-calibration plots to allow the user his/her own assessment of instrument performance. This should be reflected and tied into the instruments calibration report. OPEN No significant progress

25. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-ALL10 to all teams: There is some concern on the differing origin/fidelity of the magnetic field data (PP parameters/onboard data link/CAA data) used to infer various parameters (pitch angles, drift velocities, electric fields, etc.). The highest fidelity data are the CAA data, and their use should be encouraged. If other data sources are used, caveats as to their limitations should be included. OPEN PR09-ALL11 to all teams: The digital versions of a lot of the calibration results presented in the calibration reports should also be archived at the CAA OPEN PR09-ALL12 to all teams: Some reference docs listed in the UG are internal to the teams. All reference docs should be available at the CAA. OPEN No significant progress on UG or other items here

26. MSSL 2009 CAA Board Review Recommendations PR09-ALL13 to all teams: To get a quick overview of the data products, the UG should contain a table of all datasets in annex, including the dataset names and titles and a brief description/comment where necessary e.g. on time resolutions, units, etc. OPEN No significant progress on UG/CR

27. MSSL