Drop the East Cryostat from analysis?

[SFBayLaser]

Run 2 exhibited an issue with the drift field which adversely affects track/shower reconstruction in the East-East TPC and which is not easily modeled in the detector simulation. We need to decide whether to keep using the East Cryostat for the analysis or drop it.

This is likely to be an informed decision made by Angela and Alberto (but can't find their github ids so assigned to Elizabeth and Tracy).

[etworcester]

IMO, we must remove events affected by the EE issue as we do not have a simulation of the effect or a systematic in place to cover it.
Options:

1. Drop entire east cryostat. Pros: clean fix, plenty of statistics available in run 2. Cons: PR problem with dropping half of the detector.
2. Cut tracks with start or end point in EE. Pros: motivated by specific hardware issue which has resolved. Cons: Slightly more complex cut (though similar to existing FV and containment cuts).
   Maria is doing some analysis of (2) to see the difference in stats and how this impacts data/MC comparison.

[SFBayLaser]

Do we have a date for when this decision is made?
I see two scenarios:

1. This rejection of the cryostat happens at analysis level so we can debate over next weeks and make a decision as late as possible... but this means we run our simulations at the default lifetime... -or-
2. We convene a meeting straightaway to make a decision, if we drop the East Cryostat we then convene a meeting to discuss modifying the lifetime and then run all of our simulations.

Somehow (1) seems easier but at the expense of a lower lifetime than we know we have in the West.

Affected parties please comment!

[etworcester]

I think part of the conclusion of our recent debates was to not change anything substantive for the new MC - so as I understand it running with the modified lifetime is off the table. We should of course use a reasonable value for the lifetime modification systematic variation.