[Clas12_rgh] [EXTERNAL] Re: C12-24-Run-Group-H review: Replies from proponents

[silvia]

Hi Marco,
this doesn't seem a very hard question to me.

I'd answer with something like:

"During the calibration procedure of the various CLAS12 subsystems, dead 
or inefficient channels are flagged, on a run-by-run basis, in the 
calibration database, and this is done also for the Monte Carlo. These 
dead/inefficient channels are then eliminated in the reconstruction, for 
both data and MC. Run-dependent simulations are then produced, which 
include the run-dependent dead or inefficient detector channels. We 
don't foresee major differences in the way the acceptance will vary 
during RGH with respect to previously run CLAS12 experiments. CLAS12 is 
a quite stable setup overall."

Best regards,
Silvia

On 2025-07-18 17:15, Marco Contalbrigo via Clas12_rgh wrote:
> Dear all,
> below is the feedback from the PAC readers about our replies.
> I guess would be worth to prepare a dedicated slide. We can
> discuss this point at the RGH meeting on Monday.
> Bests, Marco.
> 
> 
> Dear Marco,
> 
> Thank you very much to you and your colleagues for the detailed
> answers and additional plots. In addition, we would be happy to
> understand how the acceptance stability will be ensured and
> whether the MC will be used to simulate the impact of possible
> acceptance variations. We can discuss about that point during
> the PAC next week.
> 
> Best,
> Bakur and Cynthia
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_rgh mailing list
> Clas12_rgh at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgh