Thank you all for putting so much effort in to trying to organize the flavour review just before EPS. I think that this was a useful and productive meeting that was somewhat overdue for the community. I really hope that we will be able to have similar meetings every few years to guide and inform the community of the latest developments. I've read through the notes and while I think you've done an excellent job in compiling these documents I do have a few comments (listed below). I've split these between the 'findings' and 'discussion' report summaries to help you address the comments. I've tried to keep to issues that were discussed on the day, and in a few places have given the reasoning behind my comments in case this helps to refresh your memory of the day. As a result this mail is a little longer than I had hoped it would be, and for that I apologize. Best wishes, Adrian Findings: ------------------ Re: 5th bullet: - Re: SuperB. As mentioned on the day, there is a 3rd unique capability of SuperB relative to the KEK upgrade. This is ability to run at charm threshold [psi(3770)] which is being factored into the machine design. - You mention that LHCb upgrade has tau physics capability. I think given that one might expect a 50% gain over current limits (1.5 to 1e-8) for tau->3mu, that one should be careful not to oversell expectations for the upgrade. Perhaps saying that the upgrade may have a marginal tau physics capability would be more a appropriate reflection of our current understanding? Re: 6th bullet: - While it is true that there is some overlap in the time-dependent CP measurements, on reading the last sentence of this bullet I would have concluded that LHCb could do all of the TDCPV measurements that SuperB will be able to do. That is clearly not the case. Might I suggest the following modification to that sentence: 'There is also some overlap, for example in a few of the time-dependent CP violation measurements in the B_d system' Re: 13th bullet. The FNAL Mu2e proposal has a planned second phase that will benefit from the investment in Project X. The expected sensitivity gain matches that of COMET->PRISM. The Mu2e +upgrade programme will be the primary user of beam from FNAL. I don't recall if this was mentioned in the context of Project X on the day or not, as Yoshi mostly concentrated on the KEK programme. Discussion: ---------------- [Flavour-changing physics beyond the Standard Model] The sentence 'if MEG fails to see anything hopes fade for tau LFV' is in general wrong. It is only valid for models where new physics enters through dipole operators for the channel tau->mugamma. For other channels it is not an appropriate conclusion. I think that this was the message that you were trying to convey - but there is room for misinterpretation here. To avoid possible confusion I would suggest a minor re-wording to something like "If MEG fails to see anything, a number of models would suggest that it is unlikely that large effects would be manifest in tau->mugamma. However it could still be possible to see LFV decays such as tau->3leptons at SuperB." Can someone explain what 'tau->mumumu more model dependent than tau->mugamma to reach explorable sensitivity range' is supposed to mean? I assume that this was a note taken with regard to the second sentence I've suggested above. [Rare Decays] - I mentioned in response to Patrick's talk that some B_s normalization modes could be measured at SuperB through a dedicated Y(5S) run if there was sufficient physics motivation. This is a good example of the natural synergy between SuperB and (an) LHCb (upgrade). [Lepton universality and lepton flavour violation] - the NA62 goal for RK is a 0.3% measurement [not 0.2% as written]. ~0.2% is not achievable with the existing data. - As you mention experiments for the different measurements, can you add SuperB at the end of the sentence that discusses Upsilon decays for charged Higgs (and also note that these decays are also used to search for light Dark Matter and test Lepton Universality at the sub percent level). I did mention this on the day, but I guess that these additional physics interests were missed in the bustle of the discussion. [e+e- machines] - SuperB has two official sites on the table: Tor Vergata and LNF. These sites both have advantages and disadvantages. One can put a personal bias on the outcome, however this is not the official INFN viewpoint. - With regard to the "apparent lack of interest in Belle-II". The UK SuperB community have worked toward the realization of what they believe is a viable concept that if realized will provide the best physics capability. We are hopeful that this project will go ahead, and so speculation on what on or all of the SuperB UK individuals will join Belle-II if only Belle-II goes ahead is not appropriate. We are interested in doing the physics, and if SuperB does not go ahead individuals will have to decide based on their own situations as to what they want to do in the future. One would imagine that some or all might be interested in pursuing that avenue. However one clear pre-condition would be that Belle-II needs to solidify a machine design and explain their very optimistic 2013 timescale. IMHO any more hypothetical discussions based on hearsay is not useful. As an aside, SuperB UK have prepared a document on factual issues with regard to our interest in this experiment. One question that we do address is why SuperB and not Belle-II. That document will be forwarded to the panel later today. - The statement If "LHCb sees nothing, this does not assist the case for SuperB (likewise if MEG sees nothing)" is a very model dependent statement limited to a sub-set of SuperB physics goals. One can not apply these statements to all of the new physics sensitive B, D or tau measurements at SuperB. Moreover if taken more generally to include the whole physics potential of SuperB in a model independent way, then it is simply an incorrect statement and needs to be removed and replaced with something that is actually correct. As a reminder: As had been shown on the day, SuperB can constrain the charged Higgs mass as a function of tanbeta. The current experimental situation was shown, as well as a 50ab-1 reach at a SuperB [for 2HDM]. SuperB will actually do better than both of the LHC and Tevatron experiments with these searches for 2HDM and MSSM (and presumably a number of other models). WRT NMSSM, the only place to see a light scalar Higgs would be SuperB. Given this, I think it would be very appropriate (as pointed out on the day) that there are significant new physics search capabilities of SuperB even if LHCb and MEG do not see a sign for NP. Might I suggest the following "Even if LHCb and MEG fail to uncover signs of new physics, SuperB will be able to perform a number of unique direct and indirect searches, including light scalar Higgs, light Dark Matter, TeV scale SUSY and massive charged Higgs particles. For example in the case of B->tau nu the constraint on the charged Higgs mass will exceed the capability of the LHC."