1. Towards Snowmass Jul. 13, 2005 Y.Sugimoto

2. Charge for Detector WGs Charge for Concept Groups: work towards a baseline design define performance criteria based on physics objectives, in consultation with the physics WGs and using common benchmarks when possible develop costing procedures common across all concepts identify and create a timeline of critical R&D for subsystems develop tools to assess the detector concept's capability to achieve physics objectives discuss the impact of machine parameter choices on detector performance (L*, crossing angle, non-uniform B-field), especially for subsystems in the forward region define minimum space or stay-clears for beam pipe, masking, diagnostics Charge for Subsystem Working Groups: identify and timeline R&D necessary to evaluate subsystem concepts compare alternative subsystem technologies identitfy cost/material/performance tradeoffs

3. Schedule until Snowmass GLD Documents – by July 31st Report to MDI Panel  Tauchi-san Report to Detector R&D Panel Define the baseline design concept For each sub-detector, describe the baseline technology and possible options Show the status of funding and manpower (at least for the baseline technology R&D) By Snowmass Define the 0 th baseline design including geometry of each sub-detector  Input from the IR task-force study At Snowmass Polish up (optimize) the baseline design Find out the missing R&D and new collaborators Define performance criteria based on Physics (completely missing now)  Input from simulation study and from discussion with other groups

4. VTX task list Please read the following document: http://ilcphys.kek.jp/gld/documents/VTXtasklist.pdf

5. Question List on VTX Inner radius Beam pipe radius: SR mask vs. Luminosity Core of pair background Pair background and 2-  background vs. tracking efficiency Physics capability as a function of inner radius (and sensor thickness) Impact parameter resolution, b, c,  -tag efficiency, and impact on physics Vertex-charge determination Outer radius (and inner radius of SIT) Connection with SIT (Tracking efficiency) with background hits cos  coverage and forward disks? Support structure and readout electronics – material budget Tracking efficiency under large background condition Standard pixel option vs. fine pixel option Background rejection capability of FPCCD using cluster shape Do other PIDs help the flavor tagging?

6. Initial Parameters of VTX Standard Pixel Option Pixel size /  = 20 / 3  m R = 20, 30, 40, 50 mm (4 layers) L/2 = 65, 100, 100, 100 mm cos  : 0.95 (1 st layer) – 0.9 (4 th layer) t / t epi = 50 / 15  m Fine Pixel Option Pixel size /  = 5 / 1.5  m R = 20, 22, 32, 34, 48, 50 mm (6 layers) L/2 = 65, 65, 100, 100, 100, 100 mm cos  : 0.95 (1 st layer) – 0.9 (6 th layer) t / t epi = 50 / 15  m Forward disk Z = 120 (+ 122 for FP option) mm, R = 40 – 58 mm (cos  :0.95 – 0.9) Beam pipe R = 15 mm, t = 250  m, Be

7. What can we do for VTX? For “Concept” Demonstrate FPCCD can achieve good tracking efficiency and impact parameter resolution to make it as one of the candidate technologies for GLD/LDC Determine baseline geometry for GLD from the view point of beam background (IR task force) Identify timeline for R&D (depends on budget)  (T_T) For “Subsystem” Identify timeline for R&D (depends on budget)  (T_T) Exchange information with other groups