Now we've had time to actually put things into a talk-like form. 

If you go to http://www.pa.msu.edu/~brock/file_sharing/snowmass2013/

Look at the 930pm titled pdf. What you'll notice is a brutal elimination of words into what we hope is the essence of your conclusions. I might include the full complement of conclusions as an appendix.

o What's not been touched since this afternoon is the physics case slides for the new machines...that requires some thought still to emphasize the important cases. These are meant to be "why" we would build an upgrade or such a facility.

o I'm teetering back and forth about vacuum instability.

o Noticed: Slide 18 should say Knew where to look for the Higgs Boson

So you need to tell me if we've hacked too much, or the wrong things. Again, we're presuming that the audience is not EF colleagues but others who don't do this work every day.

Finally...

o I'm thinking of a slide that says the following. You should tell me how you think this might be received.

A slide that would be horizontal, but would show the following "documentation scale"

LHC   > TDR

ILC    = TDR

ILC-HL = TDR

CLIC  =  CDR

muon collider     < CDR

TLEP     (blank)

This would make two points. First, I continue to feel tension between the natural conservatism built into projecting with a running, battle-scarred real detector at LHC as compared with a highly tuned, but still proposed detector at ILC. I also clearly am sensitive to the tension between the very sophisticated ILC proposals and the really virtual TLEP ideas.

What do you think?

best

Chip and Michael