Coverage and known gaps¶
This site documents six sim/reco workflow presentations to the Phlex Adoption Working Group. The pages overlap in detector scope and do not cover all DUNE software.
Last verified: 2026-08-26.
Current coverage¶
| Area | Coverage | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| protoDUNE data hierarchy | Partial | DAQ terminology and offline object chain; no end-to-end production deck |
| ND prototypes | Partial | Four-slide hierarchy and workflow overview |
| ND-LAr and TMS sim/reco | Strong | Full production-chain deck |
| SAND sim/reco | Strong | Full workflow deck, framework status, and capacity concern |
| FD TPC sim/reco | Strong | Module/product chain, hierarchy proposal, and migration entry points |
| FD PDS sim/reco | Strong | Module/product chain, bottleneck, and migration recommendation |
| Existing FD art/FHiCL entry points | Partial | Literal configurations are documented for the FD TPC and PDS talks only |
| DUNE-native Phlex pathfinder packages | Partial | dune-xerosere package graph and reported status |
| Migration inventory | Dated baseline | April 2026 static audits, not current execution status |
Material gaps¶
Core software and detector services, analysis and validation, and trigger/DAQ/raw-data code account for 258 of the 433 direct declarations in the April 2026 scope estimate. These areas have limited coverage here; the estimate also lacks a public, reproducible scan reference.
Pages or source-backed coverage are still needed for:
- conditions, calibration, geometry, channel maps, and framework services;
- DAQ ingress, trigger decisions, and
art::TriggerResultsreplacement requirements; - FORM, RNTuple, HDF5, schema evolution, and persistent references;
- analysis and CAF consumers;
- production orchestration, justIN, validation, and regression comparisons;
- core/common plugin migration and ownership;
- actual milestone progress, staffing, and current blockers.
The I/O, persistence, and associations page records design requirements. Supported configurations and executable validation results are still needed.
Evidence and maintenance gaps¶
The following gaps remain after the September 2026 documentation review. This review did not reverify implementation status.
| Gap | Evidence needed |
|---|---|
| Source access | Public links and slide/page references for the six workflow presentations, the July pathfinder report, the FORM talk, and the CDR conclusions |
| Migration inventory | Public scan inputs, repository revisions, counting rules, and results supporting the April totals and figures |
| Current progress | An owner-reviewed F2 update, repository status, blockers, and a dated public tracker |
| Executable validation | A pinned software environment, sample inputs, commands, expected outputs, and comparison tolerances for the first migrated workflow |
| FHiCL discrepancy | A release-specific check of the conflicting Reco2 filenames in the FD TPC and PDS presentations |
| Convention decisions | Public proposals, review dates, and recorded adoption decisions for units, timestamps, and Python |
| Ownership | Confirmed maintainers and review contacts; presenting a workflow does not establish responsibility for its migration |
How to interpret the six workflow pages¶
Treat each page as a documented workflow scope:
explicit: stated directly in that scope's source deck;inherited: supplied by a companion presentation covering the same production chain;inferred: a cross-source interpretation that needs owner validation;unaddressed: the source does not provide evidence either way.
This evidence vocabulary is used in the hierarchy comparison to avoid turning missing discussion into apparent consensus.