If I understand the epic correctly the existing instrument view wouldn't be removed until the full fate new one was deployed? Perhaps the wording here could be clarified to alleviate concerns. I don't need to see it again if you do clarify this. I think in reality the MVP is in fact the prototype to let people try out the look and feel and the full version is actually the MVP. All that Rob says is true and it would be pretty disastrous if the current one was disappeared without them being in place. But I don't read the epic that way and had considered all the features described as being captured by this epic. It is a yes from me. David From: Robert Dalgliesh - STFC UKRI &lt;robert.dalgliesh(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt; Sent: 04 November 2024 12:25 To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt;uk>; mpb(a)mantidproject.org Cc: Doutch, James (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;james.doutch(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt; Subject: [Mpb] Re: Re-review Instrument View epic Hi Sarah, I think that I asked James to input into this epic. Having taken a look at the Atlassian page... I would like to highlight that the SANS group use the instrument view all the time to define detector masks (every experiment) and that we make extensive use of the feature that allows the wavelength (TOF) to be selected using the drag bar at the bottom. We also make use of difference colour bar scaling. Linear/logarithmic etc in order to view different aspects of the scattering. Within the interface we use the features that allow regions to be summed and masked as well as those that allow us to pick individual spectra or tubes and view these immediately in the on-screen plot. These features are particularly useful when trying to determine if scattered features are parasitic flares that need to be masked. Masks are saved directly from the interface using the save mask to file. In other words, we use a significant number of the existing features. I'm as concerned that the MVP does not include masking features and how to deal with them. Rob From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: 04 November 2024 09:46 To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> Subject: [Mpb] Re-review Instrument View epic Dear all, I am e-mailing to ask for a re-review of the Instrument View Epic (https://isisneutronmuon.atlassian.net/browse/SS-117 ). The requests made to change the epic to take account of GUIs that use Instrument View (e.g. ALFView) have been completed. We have also checked with the science areas requested. For those that did not respond initially we gave them until 1st November for comment otherwise we would assume assent. We have now received all the responses we can expect - please see the other e-mail chain to the list for more details. Therefore I am asking for the board to make a decision as soon as possible on this one as we would like to start work on it. We have not done this before but I think we would need a yes or no in writing (i.e. response to this e-mail). Let me know if you have any questions Many thanks Sarah Sarah Foxley Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager Science and Technology Facilities Council Phone - 01235 446938 sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org> She/Her/Hers [stfc_logo]

I think this is fine providing we keep the old one running on the side until the new one performs well. A couple of things I don't see (like Rob, we use this all the time). The peak overlay is good but other functionalities like peak erasing should be there for us (they are there at the moment but have become increasingly buggy). I guess this comes under the RoI selection, etc.... But just want to make sure it is in there. Also, I think it would be very useful to be able to call some functionality with python so some set plots can be included in scripts (and eventually GUI, like the SXD one). Otherwise, I think it is good to go (there are plenty of little annoying things in instrument view that need fixing but this can be done when the project actually starts). best, P Dr Pascal Manuel ISIS Pulsed Neutron and Muon Facility STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Chilton Oxfordshire OX11 0QX United Kingdom Office: + 44 (0)1235 446290 Beamline : +44 (0)1235 567080 Mobile: +44(0) 7833 965011 (also for WhatsApp) ZoomID : https://ukri.zoom.us/j/5735149151 Skype : pascal.manuel73 ________________________________ From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI &lt;sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt; Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 1:10 PM To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;david.voneshen(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt;uk>; Dalgliesh, Robert (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;robert.dalgliesh(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt;uk>; mpb(a)mantidproject.org &lt;mpb(a)mantidproject.org&gt; Subject: [Mpb] Re: Re-review Instrument View epic Hi all, Yes the plan is to run both the current Instrument View alongside the new one. I would not seek to remove the current one without consultation with all science areas to ensure the newer Instrument View is fit for purpose. Rob – James is a stakeholder. He has been invited to meetings and been asked for input when writing the epic. We had therefore assumed that SANS issues had been raised at that stage, before the epic was put forward to the board. All the best Sarah From: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;david.voneshen(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt; Sent: 04 November 2024 12:37 To: Dalgliesh, Robert (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;robert.dalgliesh(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt;uk>; Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt;uk>; mpb(a)mantidproject.org Subject: RE: Re-review Instrument View epic If I understand the epic correctly the existing instrument view wouldn’t be removed until the full fate new one was deployed? Perhaps the wording here could be clarified to alleviate concerns. I don’t need to see it again if you do clarify this. I think in reality the MVP is in fact the prototype to let people try out the look and feel and the full version is actually the MVP. All that Rob says is true and it would be pretty disastrous if the current one was disappeared without them being in place. But I don’t read the epic that way and had considered all the features described as being captured by this epic. It is a yes from me. David From: Robert Dalgliesh - STFC UKRI <robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: 04 November 2024 12:25 To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>; mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> Cc: Doutch, James (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <james.doutch@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:james.doutch@stfc.ac.uk>> Subject: [Mpb] Re: Re-review Instrument View epic Hi Sarah, I think that I asked James to input into this epic. Having taken a look at the Atlassian page… I would like to highlight that the SANS group use the instrument view all the time to define detector masks (every experiment) and that we make extensive use of the feature that allows the wavelength (TOF) to be selected using the drag bar at the bottom. We also make use of difference colour bar scaling. Linear/logarithmic etc in order to view different aspects of the scattering. Within the interface we use the features that allow regions to be summed and masked as well as those that allow us to pick individual spectra or tubes and view these immediately in the on-screen plot. These features are particularly useful when trying to determine if scattered features are parasitic flares that need to be masked. Masks are saved directly from the interface using the save mask to file. In other words, we use a significant number of the existing features. I’m as concerned that the MVP does not include masking features and how to deal with them. Rob From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: 04 November 2024 09:46 To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> Subject: [Mpb] Re-review Instrument View epic Dear all, I am e-mailing to ask for a re-review of the Instrument View Epic (https://isisneutronmuon.atlassian.net/browse/SS-117 ). The requests made to change the epic to take account of GUIs that use Instrument View (e.g. ALFView) have been completed. We have also checked with the science areas requested. For those that did not respond initially we gave them until 1st November for comment otherwise we would assume assent. We have now received all the responses we can expect – please see the other e-mail chain to the list for more details. Therefore I am asking for the board to make a decision as soon as possible on this one as we would like to start work on it. We have not done this before but I think we would need a yes or no in writing (i.e. response to this e-mail). Let me know if you have any questions Many thanks Sarah Sarah Foxley Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager Science and Technology Facilities Council Phone – 01235 446938 sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org> She/Her/Hers [stfc_logo]

It is a "yes" for me providing these little details are not forgotten about. ________________________________ From: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt; Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 12:21 PM To: Manuel, Pascal (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;pascal.manuel(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt;uk>; Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;david.voneshen(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt;uk>; Dalgliesh, Robert (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;robert.dalgliesh(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt;uk>; mpb(a)mantidproject.org &lt;mpb(a)mantidproject.org&gt; Subject: RE: Re-review Instrument View epic Dear all, Just to summarise where we are before I go on leave David – yes Rob – yes Pas – Maybe? Steve K – away Steve C – away I will pass on the specific comments about work to be covered to James Clarke who is leading the epic so that they can be taken into account. All the best Sarah From: Manuel, Pascal (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;pascal.manuel(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt; Sent: 04 November 2024 14:04 To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt;uk>; Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;david.voneshen(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt;uk>; Dalgliesh, Robert (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;robert.dalgliesh(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt;uk>; mpb(a)mantidproject.org Subject: Re: Re-review Instrument View epic I think this is fine providing we keep the old one running on the side until the new one performs well. A couple of things I don't see (like Rob, we use this all the time). The peak overlay is good but other functionalities like peak erasing should be there for us (they are there at the moment but have become increasingly buggy). I guess this comes under the RoI selection, etc.... But just want to make sure it is in there. Also, I think it would be very useful to be able to call some functionality with python so some set plots can be included in scripts (and eventually GUI, like the SXD one). Otherwise, I think it is good to go (there are plenty of little annoying things in instrument view that need fixing but this can be done when the project actually starts). best, P Dr Pascal Manuel ISIS Pulsed Neutron and Muon Facility STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Chilton Oxfordshire OX11 0QX United Kingdom Office: + 44 (0)1235 446290 Beamline : +44 (0)1235 567080 Mobile: +44(0) 7833 965011 (also for WhatsApp) ZoomID : https://ukri.zoom.us/j/5735149151 Skype : pascal.manuel73 ________________________________ From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 1:10 PM To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; Dalgliesh, Robert (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk>>; mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> <mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>> Subject: [Mpb] Re: Re-review Instrument View epic Hi all, Yes the plan is to run both the current Instrument View alongside the new one. I would not seek to remove the current one without consultation with all science areas to ensure the newer Instrument View is fit for purpose. Rob – James is a stakeholder. He has been invited to meetings and been asked for input when writing the epic. We had therefore assumed that SANS issues had been raised at that stage, before the epic was put forward to the board. All the best Sarah From: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: 04 November 2024 12:37 To: Dalgliesh, Robert (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk>>; Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>; mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> Subject: RE: Re-review Instrument View epic If I understand the epic correctly the existing instrument view wouldn’t be removed until the full fate new one was deployed? Perhaps the wording here could be clarified to alleviate concerns. I don’t need to see it again if you do clarify this. I think in reality the MVP is in fact the prototype to let people try out the look and feel and the full version is actually the MVP. All that Rob says is true and it would be pretty disastrous if the current one was disappeared without them being in place. But I don’t read the epic that way and had considered all the features described as being captured by this epic. It is a yes from me. David From: Robert Dalgliesh - STFC UKRI <robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: 04 November 2024 12:25 To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>; mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> Cc: Doutch, James (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <james.doutch@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:james.doutch@stfc.ac.uk>> Subject: [Mpb] Re: Re-review Instrument View epic Hi Sarah, I think that I asked James to input into this epic. Having taken a look at the Atlassian page… I would like to highlight that the SANS group use the instrument view all the time to define detector masks (every experiment) and that we make extensive use of the feature that allows the wavelength (TOF) to be selected using the drag bar at the bottom. We also make use of difference colour bar scaling. Linear/logarithmic etc in order to view different aspects of the scattering. Within the interface we use the features that allow regions to be summed and masked as well as those that allow us to pick individual spectra or tubes and view these immediately in the on-screen plot. These features are particularly useful when trying to determine if scattered features are parasitic flares that need to be masked. Masks are saved directly from the interface using the save mask to file. In other words, we use a significant number of the existing features. I’m as concerned that the MVP does not include masking features and how to deal with them. Rob From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: 04 November 2024 09:46 To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> Subject: [Mpb] Re-review Instrument View epic Dear all, I am e-mailing to ask for a re-review of the Instrument View Epic (https://isisneutronmuon.atlassian.net/browse/SS-117 ). The requests made to change the epic to take account of GUIs that use Instrument View (e.g. ALFView) have been completed. We have also checked with the science areas requested. For those that did not respond initially we gave them until 1st November for comment otherwise we would assume assent. We have now received all the responses we can expect – please see the other e-mail chain to the list for more details. Therefore I am asking for the board to make a decision as soon as possible on this one as we would like to start work on it. We have not done this before but I think we would need a yes or no in writing (i.e. response to this e-mail). Let me know if you have any questions Many thanks Sarah Sarah Foxley Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager Science and Technology Facilities Council Phone – 01235 446938 sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org> She/Her/Hers [stfc_logo]

Thanks for your comments. I have updated [SS-117] Instrument View Overhaul - Jira<https://isisneutronmuon.atlassian.net/browse/SS-117> accordingly and as I understand your comments and moved this Epic into Ready. Also, CCed in James and Richard FI. Best, Anders From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI &lt;sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt; Sent: 05 November 2024 16:35 To: Manuel, Pascal (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;pascal.manuel(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt;uk>; Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;david.voneshen(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt;uk>; Dalgliesh, Robert (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;robert.dalgliesh(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt;uk>; mpb(a)mantidproject.org Subject: [Mpb] Re: Re-review Instrument View epic James and Richard are going to set up a document with all the finer details of what people want which will be shared with all the stakeholders. It will probably happen later this week. They will ensure they include the details provided are put in there so we can keep track of them. So I guess that means a yes? David - yes Rob - yes Pas - yes Steve K - away Steve C - away I know Steve C liaised with Johnny who sent the response to the team on behalf of Muon's and so has been involved in checking over the Epic. I'd like to think any serious issues would have been raised at that stage. On that basis I've told the team they can start work on the epic during v6.12. They will be in contact with stakeholders to share the document mentioned above and keep them up to date. Many thanks Sarah From: Manuel, Pascal (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <pascal.manuel@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:pascal.manuel@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: 05 November 2024 15:47 To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>; Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; Dalgliesh, Robert (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk>>; mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> Subject: Re: Re-review Instrument View epic It is a "yes" for me providing these little details are not forgotten about. ________________________________ From: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 12:21 PM To: Manuel, Pascal (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <pascal.manuel@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:pascal.manuel@stfc.ac.uk>>; Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; Dalgliesh, Robert (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk>>; mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> <mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>> Subject: RE: Re-review Instrument View epic Dear all, Just to summarise where we are before I go on leave David - yes Rob - yes Pas - Maybe? Steve K - away Steve C - away I will pass on the specific comments about work to be covered to James Clarke who is leading the epic so that they can be taken into account. All the best Sarah From: Manuel, Pascal (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <pascal.manuel@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:pascal.manuel@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: 04 November 2024 14:04 To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>; Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; Dalgliesh, Robert (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk>>; mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> Subject: Re: Re-review Instrument View epic I think this is fine providing we keep the old one running on the side until the new one performs well. A couple of things I don't see (like Rob, we use this all the time). The peak overlay is good but other functionalities like peak erasing should be there for us (they are there at the moment but have become increasingly buggy). I guess this comes under the RoI selection, etc.... But just want to make sure it is in there. Also, I think it would be very useful to be able to call some functionality with python so some set plots can be included in scripts (and eventually GUI, like the SXD one). Otherwise, I think it is good to go (there are plenty of little annoying things in instrument view that need fixing but this can be done when the project actually starts). best, P Dr Pascal Manuel ISIS Pulsed Neutron and Muon Facility STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Chilton Oxfordshire OX11 0QX United Kingdom Office: + 44 (0)1235 446290 Beamline : +44 (0)1235 567080 Mobile: +44(0) 7833 965011 (also for WhatsApp) ZoomID : https://ukri.zoom.us/j/5735149151 Skype : pascal.manuel73 ________________________________ From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 1:10 PM To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; Dalgliesh, Robert (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk>>; mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> <mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>> Subject: [Mpb] Re: Re-review Instrument View epic Hi all, Yes the plan is to run both the current Instrument View alongside the new one. I would not seek to remove the current one without consultation with all science areas to ensure the newer Instrument View is fit for purpose. Rob - James is a stakeholder. He has been invited to meetings and been asked for input when writing the epic. We had therefore assumed that SANS issues had been raised at that stage, before the epic was put forward to the board. All the best Sarah From: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: 04 November 2024 12:37 To: Dalgliesh, Robert (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk>>; Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>; mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> Subject: RE: Re-review Instrument View epic If I understand the epic correctly the existing instrument view wouldn't be removed until the full fate new one was deployed? Perhaps the wording here could be clarified to alleviate concerns. I don't need to see it again if you do clarify this. I think in reality the MVP is in fact the prototype to let people try out the look and feel and the full version is actually the MVP. All that Rob says is true and it would be pretty disastrous if the current one was disappeared without them being in place. But I don't read the epic that way and had considered all the features described as being captured by this epic. It is a yes from me. David From: Robert Dalgliesh - STFC UKRI <robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:robert.dalgliesh@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: 04 November 2024 12:25 To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>; mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> Cc: Doutch, James (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <james.doutch@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:james.doutch@stfc.ac.uk>> Subject: [Mpb] Re: Re-review Instrument View epic Hi Sarah, I think that I asked James to input into this epic. Having taken a look at the Atlassian page... I would like to highlight that the SANS group use the instrument view all the time to define detector masks (every experiment) and that we make extensive use of the feature that allows the wavelength (TOF) to be selected using the drag bar at the bottom. We also make use of difference colour bar scaling. Linear/logarithmic etc in order to view different aspects of the scattering. Within the interface we use the features that allow regions to be summed and masked as well as those that allow us to pick individual spectra or tubes and view these immediately in the on-screen plot. These features are particularly useful when trying to determine if scattered features are parasitic flares that need to be masked. Masks are saved directly from the interface using the save mask to file. In other words, we use a significant number of the existing features. I'm as concerned that the MVP does not include masking features and how to deal with them. Rob From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: 04 November 2024 09:46 To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> Subject: [Mpb] Re-review Instrument View epic Dear all, I am e-mailing to ask for a re-review of the Instrument View Epic (https://isisneutronmuon.atlassian.net/browse/SS-117 ). The requests made to change the epic to take account of GUIs that use Instrument View (e.g. ALFView) have been completed. We have also checked with the science areas requested. For those that did not respond initially we gave them until 1st November for comment otherwise we would assume assent. We have now received all the responses we can expect - please see the other e-mail chain to the list for more details. Therefore I am asking for the board to make a decision as soon as possible on this one as we would like to start work on it. We have not done this before but I think we would need a yes or no in writing (i.e. response to this e-mail). Let me know if you have any questions Many thanks Sarah Sarah Foxley Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager Science and Technology Facilities Council Phone - 01235 446938 sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org> She/Her/Hers [stfc_logo]