First, modulo an overall conveners' meeting tonight, early this morning we learned that the other two physics frontier groups are organizing their final summaries differently: Right now, the CF is splitting the summary talks evenly between Jonathan and Steve. The IF is having a junior physicist present the neutrino results and JoAnne will present everything else.

Without discussing it with you all, weeks ago Michael and I concluded that I'd do the summary talk here and he'll summarize at DPF. You should comment if you think we should also split this up in some way like the others are. We'll interpret no reaction as concurrence that this is my problem.

But before learning of this tag-team approach from the other frontiers, as you can imagine I'd been thinking about how to organize the EF summary talk on Tuesday. Right now my preference would be the following...and I'd appreciate your reaction.

I feel like the EF is blessed/burdened by the state of the Standard Model and the Higgs discovery. I've got some comments to the unusual nature of this history and its import. This morphs into a discussion of what are the theoretical impulses for expecting BSM physics (although I like Marcela's insistence that the Higgs is "new physics"); the in-hand, urgent experimental evidence for BSM physics; and in 1 slide, how surprises have happened historically. I will also enumerate Big Questions with the intention of color-tagging each of your snowmass result with one or more Big Question relationship.

There's been a lot of work by you and your groups and a beyond-Snowmass level of effort. So I think I should say a few words about that.

3. The Results. (see below)

This will hopefully include an enumeration of the answers to the 4 questions we posed back in October and an enumeration of the scientific relationships among the Frontiers.

These can be presented in at least two projections and I've a preference for one of them.

A. I could organize the results by physics-theme...aka "working group," and then within, order the consequences against the relevant facilities.

B. I could organize the results first by facility, and then within them, by physics theme.

I've a strong preference for A and here's why:

o If I were to organize by facility, every physics topic would appear as many times as there are facilities. I suspect that in a fast-moving talk, this would be hard to connect together. I think A avoids that. 

o Already many of your results are tabulated by A and I'd have to show the same tables over and over if I did B.

o It's easier to organize by A.

At the end, I would re-project the results into bulleted physics cases for each facility in summary slides, one or two per slides by facility - this covers our four motivating questions. Also this way I could include items not covered in The Results section.

So I'm imagining that my trajectory is A unless you argue otherwise!

Remember that the afternoon before we meet with you on Friday and Saturday, I'll remind you of what I'm personally hoping to "get" out of our meeting.

best

Chip