Summary of the discussions:

1. Summary of the discussions: • - The passage of gradual CMEs at 1AU are associated in situ with rotations of the magnetic field angle that we interpret as magnetic flux ropes. • There is a pleasing continuity between the aspect of all classes of gradual events (bubble-shaped CMEs, pinch-offs and single outward components, in-out pairs, streamer blobs and arches). • STEREO has shown that the in situ signatures of streamer arches (and therefore the larger blobs) are also rotations of the magnetic field interpreted as helical magnetic fields. • It is harder to explain the appearance of impulsive CME events in terms of a simple croissant-shaped flux rope (except the clean 3-part CME).

2. Summary of the discussions: • Remaining questions and further work: • -we still don’t know what a CME leg is? Twisted magnetic fields, flux rope or stretched field lines? • -why are impulsive event more complex in aspect (sometimes it is very hard to see a cavity or a feature that we can interpret as a magnetic flux rope)? • and we speculated ad infinitum: the CME appears more complex because: • the source region is complex (Tibor) • the CME interacts violently with the ambient corona (streamers) (Rouillard) • could the magnetic flux rope be different in form to the simple croissant-shape flux rope (has been suggested by modelers in the past) (Roussev suggested that in the past). • -Can we find a systematic pattern of emergence process in impulsive events by using the extensive coverage or wavelengths from SDO (from the very hot lines to the cooler ones): For energetic impulsive events the formation of flux-ropes occurs low down. Post-flare loops are an extremely common by-product and the inflowing loops are on occasions clearly seen in SDO data. • -We need some clear white-light and in-situ comparisons of impulsive events! • Can we assess the impulsive and gradual event classification by removing projection effects (deriving true speeds and accelerations)?