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

[silvia]

Sorry, I meant "...which account for the run-dependent dead or 
inefficient..." instead of "include".

On 2025-07-18 17:24, silvia via Clas12_rgh wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_rgh mailing list
> Clas12_rgh at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgh