MU-CML

From the Reviewers: Internal and JSC

• Try and lead with the science (not the technological developments) as much as possible. This is already accomplished in some sections, but not all.  In particular, consider editing the executive summary and strategy to identify the key science questions to be addressed; then highlight how the technological advances and uniqueness of FAIR will allow the collaboration(s) to achieve those scientific objectives. At present the opening sentence is the Strategy summary on page 1 does not accomplish this.

• In general, it would be useful to establish clearer links between the science cases discussed in earlier sections and the technological developments and infrastructure described in Section 2.2.4.

• Establish clearer links between the science cases discussed in earlier sections and the technological developments and infrastructure described here 
• Provide a clearer outline of the work plan, explicitly highlighting the innovation and unique aspects of the proposed approach.
• Organisational structure and management: outline more clearly.
• Resource planning: ensure that key information is clearly visible – some of this is present in the text but could be emphasised (e.g., in boldface) to facilitate reference by reviewers.

• Use boldface or similar typesetting to highlight key terms and phrases, making the document easier to navigate.
• Proofread carefully for typos (e.g., lectures → lecturers, last paragraph on page 39).
• Ensure that all acronyms are defined at first use.

----------------------------------

To go directly on what can be improved, I would say that my main comments are:
* the part related to the first « Big question » (CBM/HADES/ALICE) is much better written than the two others
* the text is imbalanced towards CBM, while the rest appears a list of small measurements without strong motivation. It is partly due to the story telling: while for the CBM part, there are paragraphs of motivations and physics, the part about NUSTAR or precision physic is more about the several experiments and list of observables with no particular question (only that we need precision data to fine tune nucleosynthesis).  In my opinion, this is the main point to improve. 
* R3B is not put forward; I would even say the contrary, almost absent. There is more about HADES, CRYRING (AGATA almost). It gives the impression of a bias from the writing team. 
* The complementarity of the pillars / projects at FAIR are crucial; although some are mentioned (EOS, strangeness), the way it is done does not give the impression of a network of combined interests between the FAIR pillars. These inter-connections could be arranged more efficiently. 
* Some external facilities / experiments seem to be covered by POV V; I am lacking history but it reads like arbitrary (except for ALICE): why MESA? Why BESIII? Why HZL? 
* The PANDA part is not convincing. It looks like we are not yet prepared to answer the question. The text seems to avoid it.