Responses by Cristina Riccardi (CR), Alice Magnani (AM), Roumyana Hadjiiska (RH), Archana Sharma (Archie) , Michael Tytgat (MT), Marcus Hohlmann (MH), Othmane Bouhali (OB), Marcello Maggi (MM), Jay Hauser (JH), Archana Sharma (AS)

I. General remarks:

This is a very thorough, well-conceived, and well-written technical document describing the GE1/1 project and the R&D on which it is based.

We acknowledge your very positive comments. For Chapter 9, since we did some rearrangement following Andrzej and Jeff's remarks. (AS).

I have only a few suggestions. Since this will be submitted to various review committees and form the basis of proposals to funding agencies, I think it would be best to always lead with the improvement GE1/1 brings to the trigger and tracking performance. This is based on a simple, easy-to-understand, argument and constitutes “added-value”, even if the existing CSC detectors continue to work well. Usually, the proponents do lead with this argument but sometimes they instead emphasize the “redundancy” aspect, especially if the performance of the CSCs begins to degrade after many years of service. While that may well happen and the possibility does need to be included in the GE1/1 justification, that may not happen or there may be other ways of dealing with that. The redundancy argument will certainly have more weight in the discussion to fill the remaining empty “forward RPC” slots with additional chambers. So I think it should be included but not featured.

For specific examples, the third sentence in the “abstract” has the order the way I thin it should be. I would, however, suggest reordering and rewording the bulleted list starting on line 218. I also suggest that the GEM team take this approach in the various presentations that they will be giving.

This re-ordering of priorities has been taken into account in Chapter 1 (JH).

The document explains the benefits to the trigger but does not yet have the information necessary to translate the expected improvement to the trigger into “physics” gains. That has yet to be done. I look forward to reading the missing section 6.4 promised this month. One carefully worked out example would be sufficient, I would think.

From a technical standpoint, the case is very convincing and the places where there is still work to be done are identified and should, in my opinion, not produce surprises.

I also want to praise the GEM team for the way they discuss the relation of this project to existing GEM detectors. Section 2.1.3, “Choice of GEM technology for GE1/1 as motivated by other experiments”, gives a short summary of other successful GEM projects that states very clearly how the “parameter space” of the successful effort relates to parameter space required of GEM technology in CMS. It is made quite clear what implementation or performance feature needed by CMS has been achieved and what has not yet been demonstrated elsewhere. I have seen reports where teams have used the success of other detectors to strengthen their own case when very few of their specific challenges have really been tested by the devices they refer to. We should take this as a model for future reports.

We appreciate the praise and are glad that section 2.1.3. is particularly helpful to this reader (MH).

Finally this is a very thorough document with a lot of technical detail that is familiar to the authors. In some cases, it is very hard for someone who is not part of the effort to understand what is being presented. Figures with a lot of detail should be accompanied by explanations in the text or the caption of what the important points are. Conclusions that are supposed to be taken away should be very clearly stated.

II. Specific comments

1. 1. Title page and abstract

trivial point “number of muon layers is least” → “number of muon layers is smallest”

or possibly “number of muon layers is lowest”

MT: done

1. Chapter 1

Line 148-149: You should say right here why the RPC’s were not implemented in the initial construction. You could use the language from lines 218-220, “due to concerns about their rate capability”.

Done (JH).

Line 177: “quadrant cross section” should be replaced by a better term. “cross section of a quadrant of CMS’ or “cross section of a quadrant of CMS at x=0” or something.

Done (JH).

Line 184: “within the first muon station”. I think what this means is that you are comparing to the determination using the 6 layers of ME1/1 (and probably the collision point) to one that uses both GE1/1 and ME1/1. Since most non- CMS and even many CMS readers will not know the CSC geometry wel lenoght o understand this.

Reworded to make clearer. (JH).

Fig 1.2: Somewhere in the text or caption, you should say what the “constant efficiency” is.

Done (JH).

Lines 218- 226: I would reorder these as explained above.

Done (JH).

Line 229: “applies” → “employs”

Done (JH).

Line 230 “ amplification occurs” → “amplification that occurs”

Done (JH).

Fig 13: I would up with the two subfigures and a frame between than that had the file name og the figure in it. Just make sure this does not propagate to the final version.

Remains to be fixed.

Line 260-262: The nested “which”s is pretty ugly.

Rewrote the sentence (JH).

Line 263: “hits get attributed” → “hits are attributed”

Done (JH).

Line 265: The “VFAT3 ASIC” appears abruptly here. Consider providing a little context, e.g. “The VFAT3 ASIC, a modified version of the VFAT2 chip designed by X for use in Y, is well-advanced in its design. The main new features are …, The first submission …”

Reworded (JH).

Line 268: I do not think the GEB has been mentioned and the acronym is not defined until line 321 so at least say the “GEM Electronics Board (GEB), described in chapter3,”

Done (JH).

Figure 1.6: There is a lot of equipment in this figure. Put an big, visible arrow over actual GE1/1 prototype

Remains to be fixed.

Line 296: “will safely be completely within two years” → “will safely be completed within tow years”. However, I also would like to know whether safely means “adhering to safety requirements” or it is referring to the idea that is will be completed “well within time to confirm the final design”.

The latter. Done (JH).

Line 302: “completed in this envelope” → “completed within this envelope”

Done (JH).

Line 303: “The routing … were … demonstrated”→ “The routing … was … demonstrated”

Done (JH).

Line 359: “which are foreseen to be installed” → “will be installed” (Or perhaps “that are expected to be installed”).

Done (JH).

2. Chapter 2

Line 373-375: A better description of the holes might be “the GEM holes are truncated cones with the larger diameter around 70 \mu m and smaller diameter around 50 \mu m.”

Changed to: ...the GEM holes are truncated double cones with the larger (outer) diameters around $70~\mu$m and the smaller (inner) diameter around $50~\mu$m;

Figure 2.1: You give the hole size as 70 microns, which is fine, but you have already said that the configuration in more complicated. So maybe you should qualify “hole size”.

Changed to: ... through a bi-conical GEM hole (right). The outer diameters of the hole are $70~\mu$m and the inner diameter is $50~\mu$m; the hole pitch is $140~\mu$m. (MH)

Section 2.1.1: It is very nice to have the requirements and specification written down so clearly. I suggest you consider putting the requirements given in the bulleted list line 397-403 in a table (I would not mind if you left it as both a bulleted list and a table). Whatever you decide, it seems more appropriate to me to have the “specifications’ listed in table 2.1 follow the “requirements”, instead of preceding them as they do now.

We are glad that the list of requirements is helpful. If we put them both into a list and a table, I am sure someone will complain that this is redundant info in an already very long chapter, so we leave it as is. However, we agree that it would be more logical to have the requirements come before the specs, so we have reversed the order. (MH)

Line 447: “3T in the endcap” – I think you wanted to say “3T in the location of GE1/1”. There must be many places in the “endcap” where the field is not 3T.

Good point. Corrected to: a magnetic field of 3~T at the location of the GE1/1 chambers (MH)

Section 2.1.3: I already said that I think that this is a very effective summary of what you be learned from experience with these detectors so far that is relevant to this project,

Thank you. (MH)

Section 2.2.1: This is a very effective description of a very effective R&D program. Figure 2.7 is really impressive.

Again, thank you. We like figure 2.7, too. (MH)

Line 543-544: something broken in reference [13?-16]

Fixed. (MH)

Fig 2.7: Very, very minor comments on an awesome figure. It mightbe more effective to put the “generation numbers” with the years at the bottom of the figure and make them a little larger. You might add some words to the caption to at least explaind the “double figures”.

Fixed: Now generation numbers and years are listed together at the bottom of the images. Added a sentence to the caption: "The split figures for GE1/1-II and GE1/1-V demonstrate the evolution from construction using spacer frames to purely mechanical stretching of GEM foils without any spacers." (MH)

Line 549: \eta-partition”→ “\eta partitions”

Fixed. (MH)

Line 563: broken reference

Fixed. (MH)

Line 565: GE1/1-VI is sort of tossed in there without any explanation at this point

True. Removed ref. to GE1/1-VI here. (MH)

Fig 2.8: I am not sure what I am supposed to conclude from this plot. The two gases look they will plateau at rather different levels. The plots shown later in 2.10 make more sense and I think support the point you are trying to make.

The plateau levels are arbitrary to some degree since these are rate plateaus and not efficiency plateaus. It depends on what the incident rate is and that rate was different in the two measurements. The main information from this plot are the gain curves vs. HV and how the rate plateaus correlate with the gains for the two gases. (MH)

Line 578: a little detail about the analog characteristics of the APV chip might help a non-CMS reader (range, resolution,…)

Instead of going into details here, we add a couple of references: "The APV chips are mounted on small hybrid boards for use with the scalable readout system [ref goes here] developed by the RD51 collaboration." (MH)

Fig. 2.12: I have a hard time distinguishing the filled circle and filled square.

They are in different colors, so that should help to distinguish them in the electronic version. (MH)

Line 656-657: Begs the question, “Why not run at full field?” (I get that you simulated the correct Lorentz drift by orienting the chamber.)

True. If I remember correctly, the field was limited because of limited liquid He supply at that time. It's not crucial for the argument here, so we just delete the statement about the 3T. (MH)

Line 691-692: I guess the point you want to make is that the plateau is long enough so that this variation can be absorbed by running the voltage higher by something like 15% . Maybe that should be said.

If you run the voltage higher, then the gain will of course scale similarly for all linear pitches so that will not get rid of the variation. The point we are trying to make here is rather that this unavoidable small variation of gain due to different linear pitches at different R is within the 15% of gain variation that we get anyway from the variation in hole diameters (see requirements and specs in sec. 2.1.1). Rephrase as "We observe some increase of the effective gain with pitch size, but the range of gains due to that effect does not exceed the maximum of 15\% gain variation across the chamber that we require." (MH)

Lines 703-715: Again, a little discussion earlier of the VFAT3 requirements might help understand this section without “reading ahead”

The main feature under discussion in this instance is the shaping time, which is mentioned explicitly in the text. In the interest of not further extending a long chapter, we put a forward reference to Ch.3. (MH)

Line 723: “over the next years”→ “over the next few years” (or “the next several years” if applicable)

Yes. Change to "over the next several years." (MH)

Line 727-728: “CF4 has the property … “ is badly written, “The addition of CF4improves the time response while maintaining the high efficiency” would seem to cover it.

Agreed. Changed to "..., the addition of CF$_4$ to the counting gas mixture improves the time response of the detector while maintaining a high detection efficiency" (MH)

Fig 2.22: besides finding the contrast of the various colors hard to deal with, I do not really understand this figure.

Update: This plot and references to it in the text have been deleted. (MH)

I agree. The colors correspond to the el. potential and the structures show the GEM holes. But it seems to me that the dimensions do not make that much sense for a 3/2/1/2 gap size. The holes seem much bigger than what they should be relative to the gap sizes. We will try to get a better plot. Otherwise, we delete this. (MH)

Fig 2.5: What conclusion am I supposed to draw from these three plotz?

It is simply an illustration of the possible fluctuations of primary charge clusters in the drift gap that impact the timing resolution. (MH)

Caption of Table 2.2: “Potentioal”→ “Potential”

Fixed. (MH)

Fig 2.27 and 2.28 might have been useful if shown earlier

Maybe yes, but putting them earlier would negatively impact the logical structure of the chapter. Stet. (MH)

Fig 2.31: A bit of explanation would help me appreciate this picture (beyond the fact that this level of study is being done)

A more detailed explanation of what is shown in this figure has now been incorporated into the caption. (LB, MH)

Line 867-875: Ageing studies not complete yet. Will be moved to GIF++.

That is expressed in line 873. Not sure what your suggestion is here. Do you want to replace this entire paragraph with those two sentences? That does not seem to be appropriate as the currently available results are presented in this paragraph. The last sentence states that tests will continue to completion at GIF++ (MH)

Section 2.3.3 – as a general comment, this very detailed section is a bit hard to understand, especially in the early paragraphs. However, as I persisted, I think I got the picture.

Since this is a TDR, this section lays out the planned design for the chambers in its gory details. This is necessary since this section will serve as a technical reference for the future - not just for the outside world, but for the GEM collaboration itself. We are glad that the reader persisted through this admittedly tough section. (MH)

Line 965: Is “eletroless” the correct word?

The actual word used is "electroless." Yes, it is a technical term. It is what the "E" in the "ENIG" process stands for. I believe it implies that this is not electroplating (MH)

Fig. 2.43: The contrast in the purple subfigure is poor and the details of the connect positions were hard to even notice. However, the other two subfigures provide the main information content.

Glad that the three figures together succeed at providing the intended information. (MH)

Line 1002: “that could results”→ “that could result”

Fixed. (MH)

Line 1004: “an engineering simulation software”→ “an engineering software program” (or package)

Changed to "software package" (MH)

Section 2.3.6: I guess the spring-loading has been demonstrated. Seems a bit unreliable.

Yes, it has been demonstrated in our prototypes. These are high-quality commercial spring-loaded contact pins certified for thousands of compression/relaxation cycles. However, your comment has reminded us that this could potentially be a single failure point in the design if a spring gets somehow stuck. We are currently working to add a second contact pin for each potential to add redundancy to the design. We will also perform additional tests on these pins. (MH)

3. Chapter 3

Line 1103: “floating point gate array (FPGA)” → “Field Programmable Gate Array”? TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Line 1108: “and return slow control data” → “and to return slow control data” TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Lines 1108-1110: The statement that are “two optical paths” is accurate but the way it is stated and the way the figure is drawn is at least initially confusing. TDR change : The sentence has been altered to be more clear ; “the return path is used for the VFAT3 tracking and trigger data packets as well as slow control data. “

Lines1113 and following – we finally learn about the VFAT3 chip. A brief characterization of this earlier wold have been appreciated. Comment to Reader: The VFAT3 chip is extensively described in Chapter 3.

Line 1137-1139: check that this the requirement on trigger resolution is stated in chapter 1. Comment to Reader: The trigger resolution requirement is stated correctly.

Line 1149: “The VFAT3 has”→ “The VFAT3 will have” (or can say “The design of the VFAT3 has”) TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested; “The VFAT3 will have …”

Line 1150: “This results” → “This will result” TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Line 1154: “VFAT3 has”→ “VFAT3 will have” “or “The VFAT3 design has” TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Line 1199-1200: “The data are reduced in time”? I think this means that the data are reduced in rate or quantity. TDR change: The TDR has been updated such that the sentence reads “ … the data rate is reduced …

Line 1171: I am not sure whether “constant fraction discriminator” and the acronym CFD have been associated. If not, that could be done here since CFD will be used below. Comment to Reader: The acronym is used and defined in l 709.

Line 1209: “which can”→ “that can”. TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Line 1253: “are used to the transmission” →”are used to transmit” TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Line 1256: “allows to transmit” → allows the transmission of” (this is discussed in the CMS Pub guide) TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Line 1259: “Permintting”→ “Permitting” TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Line 1264: “two slow control CC”-> “two slow control CCs” TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Section 3.3: Seems a bit sparse given the importance of the board

TDR change: Addition information has now been included explaining the GEB in more detail.

Line 1290” Perhaps “schematic of a prototype” is better than a “schematic prototype”? TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Line 1297: “frequency of the LHC’ → “frequency of the LHC bunch crossings’ (there being many frequencies associated with the LHC and its various clocks) TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Line 1304: “clock reference, which come”→”clock reference, which comes” TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

4. Chapter 4

This chapter is really detailed. Some of the information is important but some of it seemed to be devoted to describing temporary systems at a level of detail that seemed excessive.

TDR change: The chapter has been streamlined especially the section 4.5.3 “GEM DAQ prototype”. Also additional information has been added about the test facility in CERN for CSC integration.

Line 1409: “This will allow to reject”→ “This will allows the rejection of” TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Line 1409: “hit”→”hits” TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Line 1419: The sentence starting with “These fibers” maybe should be replaced with something like “The fibers needed for the transport of data to the OTMBs already exist as part of the current CSC installation and are located…” TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Line 1430-1431: “protocol could not been implemented”→ “protocol can not be implemented” TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Line 1505: “December” → “December” TDR change: The TDR has been updated as suggested.

Table 4.4: looks like it is only partially implemented TDR change: Table has been removed

5. Chapter 5

Fig. 5.1: LaTex can typeset put captions for rotated figures. That should be used here.

DONE

Line 1569-1570 and Table 5.1: These are the time ordering of steps along with their estimated duration. The actual average time for each step and the total time to make a chamber may not be strictly related to these numbers. Putting in words to indicate that they recognize the challenges might be a good thing.

DONE

Line 1598: “shipped to production sites after documents all QC and QA results in the database”, “documents”→ “documenting” or “shipped to production sites after recording all QA and QC results in the database”

DONE

Line 1619: Change first sentence to “A gas system, implemented with stainless steel pipes and leak proof.” So it uses a grammatical structure similar to the other list items.

DONE

Line 1705: I just take note of the fact that this site is listed also on line 1558. I checked the link and found a very useful clip.

DONE

Line 1733: “slids”→ “slits”

DONE

Line 1758-1759: “common techniques” → “common techniques at all chamber production sites”, which is what I think is intended

DONE

Line 1767: “performed to”→ “performed on”

DONE

Line 1769: “exploiting” → “with”

DONE

Fig. 5.2: in caption, “differents”→ “different”

DONE

Fig. 5.3: Might be helpful to have some tex t describing each figure either on the individual panes or in the caption.

DONE

Fig. 5.7: The word “appreciated” is not proper usage. I am not sure what is being said so cannot offer an alternative.

Fig. 5.8: in the caption, “was mechanical” → “whose mechanical” And “strength still”→ “strength, while still”

DONE

Fig. 5.11: Since you put it in, it might be good to label and briefly describe the active tracking elements, the absorbers, and to indicate the location of the device under test.

It is a standard cosmic stand. We believe that readers are familiar with such type of stands. We were also asked by several readers to avoid putting too much details in the text.

6. Chapter 6

Lines 1801-1805 are an excellent statement of the goal of the project.

Fig. 6.1: caption – “least muon layers”→ “fewest muon layers”
CR: Done

Line 1875: “ionization if gas detectors”→ “ionization in gas detectors”
CR: Done

Line 1879” “deem the detector inoperable” → “can render the detector inoperable”
CR: Done

Line 1881: “high flux on”→ “high flux of”
CR: Done

Line 1888: “planned in around 2019” → “planned to take place around 2019”
CR: Done

Line 1892: broken reference
CR: Done

Line 1901: “in the offline”→ “in the offline analysis”
That part has been re-phrased in response to comment from other readers (A.S.).

Line 1903: “this Chapter”→ “this chapter”
That part has been re-phrased in response to comment from other readers (A.S.).

Table 6.1: Caption – “istantaneous” → “instantaneous”
CR: Done

Also I not e in this chapter that calligraphic L is used for instantaneous luminosity and Roman L for integrated luminosity. If this is the convention, someone should check that it is used throughout the document.
CR: Checked

Line 1913: “GE11→GE1/1”
Done (A.S.).

Line 1921: “using GARFIELD package”→”using the GARFIELD package”
That part has been re-phrased in response to comment from other readers (A.S.).

Line 1924: “FLUKA allows evaluating fluxes” → “FLUKA allows the evaluation of the fluxes” I really don’t understand the stuff about the edges of detectors. What are you trying to say?
Done. That part about the edges has been re-phrased. We meant that photons from neutron decays that can hit GE1/1 chambers come from interactions of neutrons with the material close to the enclosures, as photons produced far from the enclosure will be absorbed in the material of the CMS detector (absorber, calorimeter etc.) and will not contribute to the flux of photons through the chambers. (A.S.).

Lines 1931-1934: You should have a convention for how you write Run X (hyphen or no-hyphen). Here you use “Run 1”, “Run-1” and “Run -2”. This should be consistent throughout the whole document.
Unified to not use no hyphen (A.S.).

Line 1957: “electron and positron”→ “electrons and positrons”
AM: Done

Table 6.2: Note it says these are old numbers. It also seems to have 4, not 3, R locations.
We corrected this, thank you. (A.S.).

Line 1963: There is a missing space. “Table6.3” → “Table 6.3”
AM: Done

Line 1966: “Simulation”→ “The simulation”
AM: Done

Line 1970: missing statements about energy thresholds
AM: Added

Line 1974: “changing orders of magnitude” → “changing by orders of magnitude”
AM: Done

Another general point – The use of “long-living” is probably ok but I would have used “long-lived” .
AM: Done

Line 1992: “detector in the full” → “detector into the full”
RH: Done

Table 6.4: caption “also a systematics source → “also a source of systematic uncertainty”
AM: Done

Line 2030: “cluster shape”→ “cluster size”
RH: Done

Line 2041: “Allows evaluating”→ “allows the evaluation of”
RH: Done

Line 2049” “comparies”→”compares”
RH: Done

Line 2051: “Majority”→ “The majority”
RH: Done

Fig 6.6: Caption “reached GEM” → “reaching GEM” Also, remember that the right figure needs updating
RH: Done

Line 2063-2068: As stated, this makes the use of more stations on the muon system seems like a liability, which would be possible true if they were treated as an “and” . Just think about this and see if you really need it.
Indeed. Thanks for catching it, we re-wrote these couple of sentences.(A.S.).

Lines 2097-2102: A very clear statement of how the GE1/1 improves the trigger. Should probably appear in the introduction.
Thank you (A.S.).

Fig 6.7: The plot uses MS-1… MS-4. That is a new notation not previously used This should be fixed
To be corrected (A.S.).

Fig 6.7 and 6.8: The value of the upgrade does not look so important in these plots. If you added the momentum spectrum as a function of Pt it would be very clear how sharper threshold made a huge difference to the trigger rate.
These plots are showing internal details of the elements that contribute to the final striking reduction of rate, which may have instead come across as more of the final type plots. We tried to clarify this point. Dropping them altogether is an option, but then it may create an impression that the final plots came out of nowhere. We would like to keep them for now and see what we get from the CWR comments. (A.S.).

Line 2142: I think the point that the proponents are trying to make is that this upgrade should occur in LS2 (rather than waiting for LS3). Most readers would not be aware of the context in which this remark is made. Maybe saying instead “Having this new muon chamber is place at the start of data-taking following LS2 will allow …”
We dropped "early," following another reviewer's suggestion, which seem to also address the point you brought up. (A.S.).

Line 2150- 2163 and Fig. 6.9: It would be nice to be able to quantify some of the gains. I expect that to come when the physics calculations are finally available. It would help if the trigger efficiency curves were projected onto the right-hand plot in Fig. 6.9.
We are adding a couple of illustrative plots for H->tau tau acceptance. Unfortunately, this is the only process we can show with full CMSSW simulation, redo and ID applied (A.S.).

Line 2175-2183: Another nice statement of a key selloing point that could be used in an executive summary.

Lines 2186-2189: there is a lot of notation here and I think some text errors (like maybe a missing $ sign). Someone should look at this and fix it.
Corrected. (A.S.).

Line 2205: “non-pointing”→ “not pointing” or “that does not point”
We dropped "early," following another reviewer's suggestion, which seem to also address the point you brought up. (A.S.).

Line 2212: This upgrade is now called ”Phase-II” instead of Phase 2, phase 2, Phase -2,or phase-2. There should be a consistent choice of its name.
PhaseII in the plots for long-lived particles need correcting. The TDR more or less consistently uses "Phase 2", so we should presumably stick that notation too. (A.S.).

Line 2221: “the relative important”→”the relative importance”
Archie: Done

Line 2235: “the bend”→”the bending”
Archie: Done

Line 2236: I would get rid of “Incidentally”
Archie: Done

Line 2244: I would get rid of the word “paradigm” and perhaps replace it with 9:
Done (A.S.)

Line 2273: Level-2 and Level-3 have never been used before and have not yet been defined.
We added the definition. (A.S.)

Line 2281 “design”→ “designed”
Archie: Done

Line 2310: “position”→ “positions”
Archie: Done

Fig. 6.13: caption “200 GeV/c simulated muons” – remove “simulated muons” sinceit is redundant with “sample of muons”
Archie: Done

Line 2320: “collisions data”→ “collision data”
Archie: Done

Line 2324: I do not understand wht “sitting side-by-side” means here
Removed (A.S.)

Line 2369: “allows recovering” → “allows recovery of a”
Archie: Done

Line 2369: “of inefficiency” → “of the inefficiency”
Archie: Done

Line 2371: “As it has” → “As has”
Archie: Done

Line 2375: the entire CSC” → “the entire ME1/1”
Archie: Done

Line 2383: “presence”→ “the presence”
Archie: Done

Line 2383: “GE11”→ “GE1/1”
Archie: Done

7. Chapter 7

This section is written without regard for the chapters that have preceded it so there is some repetition.

Line Fig. 7.1 and 7.2: It would be good to mark very clearly where GE1/1 would go. It does not stand out on the picture.
MT: done

Fig. 7 .3: Again, it would help to put a big arrow on the figure where the GE1/1 slot is.
MT: I guess here Fig. 7.4 is meant ? Red box added to the figure

Line 2449: “capable to define” “capable of defining”
MT: done

Line 2459-2460: I would like to know what this means. What has “been enlarged”? Is this just in a simulation test?
MT: indeed, this was just done in the simulation to test the concept

Line 2468: “independently” “independent”
MT: done

Line 2479, 2481: Change &.6/A to 7.6A and 7.6/B to 7.6B (could also use lower case letters but the caption and the plot have uppercase letters.
MT: done

Line 2485” “GEM-part” “GEM part”
MT: done

Line 2495: “precise data-evaluation”  “precise evaluation of the data”
MT: done

Line 2496: “under work” “being developed”
MT: done

Line 2522: “leak” “leakage”
MT: done

Line 2523: “operation voltages” “operating voltages”
MT: done

Line 2531-2532: “magnetic filed-tolerant” “magnetic-field tolerant”
MT: done

Line 2576: “It is foreseen to use the radiation hard fibers”  “Radiation hard fibers will be used only” (Not sure if radiation hard needs a hyphen)
MT: done

Line 2579: “are foreseen for””are planned”
MT: done

Table 7.2 and Line 2585-2586: Incomplete information – a “TBD” on maximum ripple in Table and promised detail about patch panel in text. (Probably not really necessary)
MT: fixed, TBD is now specified; details on the patch panel are left out for now

Line 2605 “it 20 mm””it as 20 mm”
MT: done

Line 2612: “until” “to”
MT: done

Line 2636: Note promise of more details. Either supply them or remove comment. I do not believe more details are necessary at this point.
MT: taken out, done

Line 2652-2654: The numbers are confusing. Clean it up. Maybe use a “times” sign between the mantissa and the power of 10.
MT: done

8. Chapter 8

Line 2663: “The dimensions and complexity of the GEM system demand” “The complexity of the GEM systems demand” (don’t really know which dimensions or why that is the issue)
MM: done

Line 2663: “automation”  “automation in its operation in order “
MM: done

Line 2681: Don’t see why the word “actuator” is present
MM: dropped

Line 2682: “composed by”  “composed of”
MM: done

Line 2682: “computers network”  “computer network” (unles syo menat “computers, network”
MM: the second... done

Line 2685” “aids” “aids”
MM: done

Line 2687: “Simens” is not how it is spelled (I think “Siemens”
MM: corrected

Line 2719: “foreseen” “provided” (or possibly “supported”)
MM: done

Line 2757-2758: “subdetectors control systems”  “subdetector control systems”
MM: done

Line 2769: “chains”  “chain”
MM: done

Line 2771-2772: Rewrite this – it is badly stated/
MM: Proposed fix "The trigger throttling system (TTS) provides the feedback loop between the readout system and the trigger system. It functions by temporarily reducing the L1A rate if it receives feedback that the readout system data buffers will begin to overflow, resulting in a loss of data and possibly data corruption or readout system instability."

Line 2774: “”attempted to recover automatically, without”  “an automatic recovery will be attempted without”
MM: done

Line 2844” “scalar””scaler” (scale means to count)
MM: no, scalars, numbers...

Line 2853: “No guarantee”  “no guarantee that”
MM: done

Line 2875: “at need”  “as needed”
MM: done

Line 2894: “overwhelmed”  “overburdened”
MM: done

Line 2895: “clear set of instructions” “clear set of instructions for interpreting them.”
MM: done

Line 2899-2901: I am not sure what the end of this list is supposed to mean
MM: dropped

Line 2926: “to a central user interface” “via a central user interface”
MM: done

Line 2932: “on the central GUI””accessible from the central GUI”
MM: done

9. Chapter 9

Chapter 9 has been updated following your, and other reader's comments - AS

Line 3045: “all institution””all institutions”
AS: done

Line 3050: “where-with-all”  “resources”
AS: done

Line 3100: “program of the project” maybe “staffing of the project”???
AS: done

Line 3125-3126: “centres, potential production sites”  “centres and potential production sites”
AS: done

Line 3138: “FAs contributions” “contributions from the participating FAs”
AS: done

Line 3163:” Is an activity that is an approved CMS project(see …)” “Consisting of the test described in Appendix A of this document(see..)”
AS: done

Line 3171: “meting””meeting”
AS: done

Figure 9.2: learn to rotate the caption
AS: Will do systematically in full TDR style change for such pages

Line 3224-3225: This line looks like some kind of broken list
AS: rephrased

Figure 9.3: learn to rotate the caption
AS: Will do systematically in full TDR style change for such pages

Line 3420: 5% is a gross underestimate of the uncertainty at this point
AS: Updated

Line 3262: “participating the subsequent linking” something is broken or does not make sense.
AS: rephrased

10. Appendix A

Line 3274: fix “most(all?)”
MT: done

Line 3290: “close the”  “close to the”
MT: done

Line 3295-3296: Please state this more clearly.
MT: not sure what is meant here ?

Line 3296: Is the unit that goes with 201 the liter? Replace “foreseen” with “required”
MT: liter indeed, as indicated already; kept "foreseen" since flow rate is to some extend arbitrarily chozen
MM: uhm, better say it differently, "since optimal flow rate extend in a wide range", still a minimal flow must be required..

Line 3309-3311: The phrase “LS2 system” means the “GE1/1 system that will be installed during LS2. That should be stated clearly.
MT: done

Line 3312: “less””fewer”
MT: done

Should we be concerned about the VFAT3 schedule?

11. Appendix B

Seems fine to me.

12. Appendix C

Figure C.4 – in what sense is there a “chimney”
MT: this refers to the shape of the cover plate

Fig. C. 17: caption “explode””exploded”
MT: done

Consider introducing Fig. C.17 into the main text at an early point – maybe instead of Fig 1.3 right side. This also deserves to get a lot of space – like at least a half a page (Fig1.3 right side is too small)
MT: Fig1.3 right side is being replaced with a new one