Source or location of the uncertainty	#	Nature or cause of uncertainty as described by the experts	Potential impact of the uncertainty on the assessment
ToR 1	1	Sensitivity and specificity of clinical examination may be variable particularly in the case of mild infections, early stages of the infection or lack of awareness of clinicians (limited Se) or presence of other processes leading to relatively similar clinical signs (limited Sp). This variability in the performance of clinical examination is difficult to characterise.	If clinical examination had a lower performance the effectiveness of the sampling strategies could be overestimated.
	2	Knowledge on the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests in several wild animal and non‐listed species is limited, and diagnostic methods may have not been validated.	The effectiveness of the sampling strategies for these animal species cannot be assessed reliably.
ToR 2 and ToR 3	3	A large variability on the periods between earliest point of infection and suspicion reported in the literature was found, with most studies obtaining their estimates through models based on assumptions (farms becoming infected from closest positive farms in the vicinity, distributions fitted to data, etc.). Furthermore, the time required for suspicion in areas where the disease has not been detected before (lower awareness) is particularly uncertain.	The effectiveness of the proposed monitoring period could be over or underestimated.
	4	Data analysed in the reports found originated from a limited number of countries whose animal populations and production systems may not be representative of those present in other areas of the EU.	The effectiveness of the proposed monitoring period could be over or underestimated.
ToR 1 and ToR 3: kernel estimation	5	Kernels are based on analysis of two epidemics (Israel 2012‐3 and Albania 2016) and may not be representative of transmission in other regions due to differences in farm density, vector species and density, management practices, etc.	The effectiveness of the proposed zone size could be over or underestimated.
	6	LSD kernels were fitted using data from outbreaks in which no movement restrictions were in place and could therefore include the effect of transmission via movement of infected animals.	The effectiveness of the proposed zone size could be underestimated.
	7	The LSD kernels quantify the risk of transmission from an affected establishment at increasing distances if transmission were to occur. Although the probability that transmission actually occurred it is unknown, it would not be expected to happen in all affected establishments.	The effectiveness of the proposed zone size could be underestimated.