Main comments from the discussion:

• Ezio - Naming:
  • We will use BOND-M  instead of M-BOND. Size in the naming always comes in the form of suffix (MQXF - MQXFS - MQXFB)
• Ezio - Slide 7: 
  • The statement " Develop an alternative to the tie rods + endplate system for medium and long size magnets" requires / deserves a proper study that shows that the rods work or not for 15 m / 20 m magnets.
• Ezio - Slide 10:
  • The choice on making 2 coils from one unit length may need to be better supported. The current coil provides 12 T with 20 % LL margin in a 35 mm aperture. One should also show the load line and conductor requirements for a 14 T version (BOND).
• Ezio - Slide 13:
  • We should also clarify why we went from a mirror (understood as the first idea) to the current version. 
    • Note that this was discussed in the first conceptual design meeting. We will add the slide to this PPT version.
• Ezio - Slide 22:
  • The comparison between coil physical and magnetic length is not fair between BOND-M and MQXF. 
    • The aperture is extremely different. If BOND-M would have the same aperture as MQXF, the end length would be much longer to allow opening the required space. 
    • We should compare it with 11 T.
• Ezio - Slide 24:
  • Please rephrase "BOND relies on novel systems like ESC/E-CLIQ ..." because we have not proven this yet.