I think I have just two fairly minor comments. One is that in the Day 2 findings I think people had been at pains (as the first bullet and the discussion report actually makes clear, to state that "in the long term there are several options ... Top priority beyond the LHC programme (including upgrades) should be ... " People were generally convinced that we need to exploit the LHC facility fully and there is a danger that some people regard the sLHC as a separate programme to the LHC. I also feel I do need to correct a comment in the discussion. The statement that "Furthermore the current detectors have been built to survive only modest integrated luminosity" is very misleading. Nobody believed that Mrad survival was possible for silicon sensors before the LHC. The doses which the trackers are designed to withstand are unprecedented and the result of over a decade of intense R&D conducted by RD2, RD20 and RD48, as well as ATLAS, CMS and LHCb. I would rather see "Furthermore, the current detectors have a limited lifetime due to the exceptional radiation environment at the LHC, but further R&D in recent years has pointed the way towards extending survival to even cope with the 10 times higher doses at the sLHC". There is nothing "modest" about the LHC luminosity or the doses which dwarf other experiments and the requirements of space applications etc. In general, as I stated in my mail to the Group Leaders, I though the whole event was excellent and you are to be strongly congratulated on your organisation and handling of this. Many thanks, Phil