1. Craig Ogilvie Strip FEE electronics that are common between stripixel or conventional sensor choice Stripixel tests/plans to establish manufacturability and performance in more complex environment Development of conventional strip, backup option. Decision strategy Project Plan for Strip Modules 6/09/2008 1 Craig Ogilvie, cogilvie@iastate.edu

2. Start tasks common to both scenarios Items that do not depend on the layout/choice of ROC, but only on decision of no pedestal-correction at SVX4 6/09/2008 Craig Ogilvie, cogilvie@iastate.edu 2 Power distribution board in big-wheel (not shown) RCC Ladder-FEM Data transfer board Data Interface Board (pedestal FPGA)

3. Start tasks common to both scenarios: schedule 1. RCC chip 2. Power distribution board in big-wheel 3. Board in big-wheel that collects data from ladders => FEM Ladder to FEM Data transfer board 4. Data interface board in FEM, contains FPGA pedestal correction 6/09/2008 Craig Ogilvie, cogilvie@iastate.edu 3

4. Strip-pixel scenario: next steps (I) 6/09/2008 Craig Ogilvie, cogilvie@iastate.edu 4 ROC3 expected to be hard to manufacture and it was 1) Next round of tests: pedestal performance under different conditions 2)Work with assembly house to improve manufacturability 3)On-the-fly pedestal subtraction tests with pixel-bus in proximity Technical review of these tasks: Aug 08 (common review with backup option) Also planning a beam-test at FNAL

5. Strip-pixel scenario: next steps (II) 6/09/2008 Craig Ogilvie, cogilvie@iastate.edu 5 Based on outcome of technical review, start the following tasks: pre-production design of ROC design of non-ROC FEE that depend on layout of ROC These are then reviewed and fabricated

6. Strip-pixel scenario: next steps (III) 6/09/2008 Craig Ogilvie, cogilvie@iastate.edu 6 Pre-Production ROC assembled with sensors => modules and tested In parallel: non-ROC FEE, stave are being fabricated => stripixel ladder test

7. Conventional strip scenario: next steps (I) Obtain existing sensors from HPK for tests with ROC3 Develop layout of sensor + module Hold technical review Aug. 2008 (same review as for stripixel) Possible outcome: purchase of pre-production sensors + ROCx design 6/09/2008 7 Craig Ogilvie, cogilvie@iastate.edu

8. Conventional strip scenario: next steps (II) Assemble conventional sensor+ROCx => module Assemble modules with non-ROC FEE + stave => ladder Comparable date for stripixel ladder (schedule set by non-ROC FEE) 6/09/2008 8 Craig Ogilvie, cogilvie@iastate.edu

9. Decision strategy Stripixel ROC3 tests finished by early Aug 08 Manufacturability of ROC3 Performance in more complex environment with pixels Perform more work on system design of conventional sensor Technical review planned mid-Aug to evaluate status of two options Criteria for stripixel is manufacturing risk and performance risk (S/N) in more complex environment with pixels If assessed risk is low => stripixel, release pre-production design If risk is high => two scenarios continue, start spending $ on conventional strip option 6/09/2008 Craig Ogilvie, cogilvie@iastate.edu 9

10. Issues and Concerns Technical concerns for stripixel are why we have started planning for a backup option Parallel paths are a drain on manpower So far no $ spent on conventional strip backup option Impact of backup option on schedule/budget not yet fully addressed. 6/09/2008 Craig Ogilvie, cogilvie@iastate.edu 10

11. Summary Two scenarios proceed in parallel till mid-Aug Each has several tasks scheduled Stripixel: further ROC3 tests and manufacturability questions Conventional: more detailed system design, costs, impact Technical review scheduled for mid-August If assessed risk of stripixel is low => continue with baseline Pre-Production ROC + stripixel test will be Feb 09 Pre-Production ladder test will be May 09 6/09/2008 Craig Ogilvie, cogilvie@iastate.edu 11