Would multi-location complementarity achieve better sensitivity than a single reconfigurable dump for capturing both prompt and long-lived mediators?

Your question asks whether multiple beam-dump locations would outperform a single reconfigurable dump for detecting both short-lived ("prompt") and long-lived mediators. The preprints speak directly to this.

The core tension you're identifying is real. A single reconfigurable dump must optimize its geometry for either prompt-decay mediators (which are produced close to the target and need a nearby detector) or long-lived mediators (which travel farther before decay). The multi-location approach avoids this compromise.

What the archive shows:

The key insight comes from complementarity. Reference [AG-2025.01-1235] makes this explicit for short-baseline neutrino facilities: "The Fermilab Booster Neutrino Beam, with its iron dump, provides one such possibility... there exist distinct features in the signal events' kinematical properties when coming from production in the dump, dirt, and detector which can allow for enhanced signal-to-background separation." The dump, dirt (shielding material upstream), and detector each have different sensitivity to mediators produced at different times—and combining all three locations improves the overall reach [AG-2025.01-1235].

Similarly, [AG-2026.01-1312] notes that "the geometric setup is particularly relevant for the specific new-physics scenario under study, since different production mechanisms can generate different angular distributions of new particles." A single reconfigurable geometry must compromise; multiple fixed locations can each be optimized for different decay-length scales.

However, there's a ceiling effect to keep in mind. [AG-2024.01-1042] shows that beam-dump experiments hit a fundamental "ceiling" in the prompt-decay region where "the improvement on the sensitivity reach...dramatically slows down," independent of statistics or backgrounds. This means that for very prompt decays, adding more dump locations may help less than expected—you're already hitting fundamental kinematic constraints.

Bottom line: Multi-location complementarity wins for mediators with a range of lifetimes, because each location optimizes for different decay lengths and provides kinematical separation. For purely prompt or purely long-lived mediators, the advantage is weaker.