 from LHCb, using the combined Run1 and Run2 data. We then reassess the expected results including Belle II measurements. Our method to project uncertainties in the two stages is based on the statistical scaling of data samples ($1/\sqrt{N_{\rm evts}}$), corrected for additional factors due to particular detector performances and analysis technique features, as described below.

LHCb Run1 and Run2 data will significantly increase the statistics mainly for the fully charged final states $B^0\rightarrow K^0_S(\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-)\pi^+\pi^-$ and $B^+\rightarrow K^+\pi^-\pi^+$, with an expected increase of about $3$ and $40$, respectively [@B0toKspipi_LHCb:2012iva; @BtoKpipi_LHCb:2013iva]. For these modes, we assume a signal-to-background ratio similar to the ones measured at $B$ factories (this may represent an underestimation of the potential sensitivity of LHCb data, but this assumption has a very minor impact on the results of our prospective study). The statistical scaling factor thus defined can be applied as such to direct $CP$ asymmetries, but some additional aspects must be considered in the scaling of uncertainties for other observables. For time-dependent $CP$ asymmetries, the difference in flavour-tagging performances (the effective tagging efficiency $Q$) should be taken into account. In the $B$-factory environment, a quality factor $Q_{\rm B-factories} \sim 30$ [@FavourTagging_BaBar:2009iva; @FavourTagging_Belle:2012iva] was achieved, while for LHCb a smaller value is used ($Q_{\rm LHCb} \sim 3$ [@FavourTagging_LHCb:2012iva]), which entails an additional factor $(Q_{\rm B-factories}/Q_{\rm LHCb})^{1/2} \sim 3.2$ in the scaling of uncertainties. For branching ratios, LHCb is not able to directly count the number of $B$ mesons produced, and it is necessary to resort to a normalisation using final states for which the branching ratio has been measured elsewhere (mainly at $B$-factories). This additional source of uncertainty is taken into account in the projection of the error. Finally, in our prospective studies, we adopt the pessimistic view of neglecting potential measurements from LHC
from LHCb, using the combined Run1 and Run2 data. We then reassess the expected result include Belle II measurements. Our method to project doubt in the two stages is based on the statistical scaling of datum samples ($ 1/\sqrt{N_{\rm evts}}$), corrected for additional factor due to particular detector performances and psychoanalysis technique features, as described below. 

 LHCb Run1 and Run2 data will importantly increase the statistics mainly for the amply charged final state $ B^0\rightarrow K^0_S(\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-)\pi^+\pi^-$ and $ B^+\rightarrow K^+\pi^-\pi^+$, with an expected increase of about $ 3 $ and $ 40 $, respectively   [ @B0toKspipi_LHCb:2012iva; @BtoKpipi_LHCb:2013iva ]. For these mood, we assume a signal - to - background ratio similar to the one measured at $ B$ factories (this may represent an underestimation of the potential sensitivity of LHCb datum, but this assumption has a very minor impact on the results of our prospective study). The statistical scaling factor therefore specify can be applied as such to direct $ CP$ asymmetries, but some additional aspects must be considered in the scaling of uncertainties for other observables. For time - pendent $ CP$ asymmetries, the difference in relish - tagging performances (the effective tagging efficiency $ Q$) should be taken into account. In the $ B$-factory environment, a quality agent $ Q_{\rm B - factories } \sim 30 $   [ @FavourTagging_BaBar:2009iva; @FavourTagging_Belle:2012iva ] was achieved, while for LHCb a smaller value is use ($ Q_{\rm LHCb } \sim 3 $   [ @FavourTagging_LHCb:2012iva ]), which entails an additional factor $ (Q_{\rm B - factories}/Q_{\rm LHCb})^{1/2 } \sim 3.2 $ in the scaling of uncertainties. For branching proportion, LHCb is not able to directly count the number of $ B$ mesons grow, and it is necessary to resort to a standardization use final states for which the branching ratio has been measured elsewhere (mainly at $ B$-factories). This additional generator of uncertainty is taken into account in the projection of the erroneousness. Finally, in our prospective study, we assume the pessimistic view of neglect potential measurement from LHC
 frlm LHCb, using the combintd Run1 and Run2 daja. We thxn reasaess the expected results including Uellw II neasurements. Our methoa to projvct uncerrainuies in the two svzges is based ln tke statistical sgaling of ddta samples ($1/\sqst{V_{\rl evts}}$), corrected for additional faceors dur ho particular qetebtjr psgfirmances and analysis techniqhe featlres, as described below.

LHCb Run1 and Run2 datw wipl significantly ijcrease the staeustics mainlh for the fully charges final states $B^0\rightarrow K^0_S(\riehtarxow \pi^+\pi^-)\pi^+\pu^-$ qnd $T^+\rightarrow K^+\pi^-\pp^+$, with an expcbted inwrease pf about $3$ and $40$, revpextively [@B0toKspipi_LHCb:2012ita; @BtoKpipi_LHCb:2013iva]. Fjr these kobes, we assume a signao-ti-backcroutd rxrio sijikad to tje knes measuded at $B$ faxtories (this may rekrefvmt an undereatimatyog of the potential sensitivity of LHCb gatz, but this assumption hqs a very minor impacj on the rqsults of our prospective study). The statistical swalinj wacuov gyud defined can be applied as such to direct $CP$ zsumketries, but soie additionsl axkects must be zonsidzdes in the scaling ov uncerjaintiws for otrer pbservables. For time-dependebt $CP$ asymmenriew, the difference iu flavour-tagying pgrformsnces (the effective tagying erficiency $Q$) should bs taken into accojnt. It the $B$-factory environment, a qualitb faccor $Q_{\rm C-facjories} \fim 30$ [@FavourHaggikc_BaBar:2009iva; @FavourTahging_Yelle:2012hva] was acjieved, while for LHCb a smaller value is used ($Q_{\sm NHCb} \sim 3$ [@FavomrTagging_LHCb:2012ivw]), which entailx an adbitionxl factor $(S_{\rm B-fartories}/Q_{\rm LRCb})^{1/2} \sim 3.2$ in tvg scaling of nncertaineies. For branchkvg ratios, LHCb is not ayje ti directly count tme nuoger of $B$ mesons priduced, and it ix ndcefswrb to wasort to a nmrmauisxyion jsing final rtatrs for which the bratchihg ratio has been kewsured eosewhere (mainly at $B$-fsctories). This addiuional sonrce og ugcertainty is taken into accouht in the prjjection of ehe crrot. Finally, iu our prospective studies, we adopt the pxssimistic view of neglwcting potential mecsmrements frok LHC
from LHCb, using the combined Run1 and We reassess the results including Belle project in the two is based on statistical scaling of data samples ($1/\sqrt{N_{\rm corrected for additional factors due to particular detector performances and analysis technique features, described below. LHCb Run1 and Run2 data will significantly increase the statistics mainly the charged states K^0_S(\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-)\pi^+\pi^-$ and $B^+\rightarrow K^+\pi^-\pi^+$, with an expected increase of about $3$ and $40$, respectively [@B0toKspipi_LHCb:2012iva; For these modes, we assume a signal-to-background ratio to the ones measured $B$ factories (this may represent underestimation the potential of data, this assumption has very minor impact on the results of our prospective study). The statistical scaling factor thus defined can applied as direct $CP$ but additional must be considered scaling of uncertainties for other observables. asymmetries, the difference in flavour-tagging performances (the effective efficiency $Q$) be taken into account. In the environment, a quality factor $Q_{\rm B-factories} \sim 30$ @FavourTagging_Belle:2012iva] was achieved, while for LHCb a smaller value is used ($Q_{\rm LHCb} \sim 3$ entails an additional factor B-factories}/Q_{\rm LHCb})^{1/2} \sim in scaling uncertainties. branching ratios, is not able to directly count the number of $B$ mesons and it is necessary to resort to a normalisation using for the branching ratio been measured elsewhere (mainly $B$-factories). additional source of uncertainty into in the Finally, our prospective studies, we the pessimistic view of neglecting measurements from LHC
 from LHCb, using the combined RUn1 and Run2 daTa. We tHen ReaSsEss tHe exPected results iNCludIng Belle II measurements. our meThOD to pROjEct unCertainTIeS IN thE tWo StaGeS Is Based On tHe statiStical scalIng Of Data samples ($1/\sQRt{n_{\rm evts}}$), corRecTed for additiOnaL factoRs Due TO partIcuLar deTector PErformAnces and aNaLYsis teCHnique fEATuRes, aS described below.

LHcB RUN1 and Run2 data wilL signiFiCAnTLY inCreAse the statIsTics mAInly for THe FULLy cHArged final staTes $B^0\rightarROw K^0_s(\rightArRow \PI^+\pi^-)\pi^+\pI^-$ and $B^+\RiGHtaRrow K^+\pi^-\pi^+$, wiTh an Expected iNcreasE Of about $3$ ANd $40$, respeCtivelY [@B0tOKsPipi_lhCB:2012iVa; @BTokPipI_lHcb:2013iVA]. FoR these moDeS, wE assuMe a sIGNAL-to-bAckGrouNd ratIo similar to thE onEs meASurEd at $B$ FactoRies (ThIs may RepresEnt an UnDerestimation of The pOtential sEnsItIviTy Of LHCB Data, buT thIs aSsumptiOn has a vERy mInOR IMpAct on the results of oUr PROsPective sTudy). ThE StAtIStical scAlIng FactOR Thus dEfinED cAn be applIed as sUCh To Direct $Cp$ aSymmetRiEs, bUt sOme adDItioNal aspEcts must Be conSIdered in the scaLIng of uncertaiNTiES FoR OtheR obServables. FoR timE-DepeNdenT $cP$ AsyMMetriEs, the DiFFeREnce in flavour-tagginG pErformAnces (The effective tAgging effiCIENcy $Q$) shouLd be TAkEN into account. In The $B$-fActory enviROnment, a qUalitY factor $Q_{\Rm B-factorIES} \sim 30$ [@FavoUrTAggIng_baBAR:2009IvA; @FavourTagginG_bElle:2012IvA] was achIevEd, while For lHCB a sMalLeR value is uSed ($Q_{\rm LHcb} \SiM 3$ [@FAvOurtaggiNG_LHCb:2012iva]), WhIch EnTaiLs an aDDitionAl facTor $(Q_{\Rm b-fACtoRies}/Q_{\rm lhCB})^{1/2} \SIm 3.2$ in ThE sCaliNg oF uNcertAintIEs. FOr brancHing ratioS, LHcB is nOt AbLe to dirEctly count the NuMber of $B$ mesOnS prOduced, AND it is necEssary to resort to a normalISation uSinG finaL staTes for whiCh tHe branChiNG ratio Has beeN measUrEd eLSEwherE (MAiNly At $b$-factories). tHIs aDditiOnAl soUrce of uNcertainty is taken iNTo aCcount in the prOjeCtioN OF tHe eRRoR. finAlLY, in OUR prospective stuDies, we adopT tHE pEssimistic VIew Of NeglectIng poteNtial MEasuremEnts from LhC
 from LHCb, using the comb ined Run1and R un2  da ta . We  the n reassess the expe cted results including  Bell eI I me a su remen ts. Our me t h odto  p roj ec t  u ncert ain ties in  the two s tag es  is based on th e statisti cal  scaling ofdat a samp le s ( $ 1/\sq rt{ N_{\r m evts } }$), c orrectedfo r  addit i onal fa c t or s du e to particular d e te c tor performanc es and  a n al y s istec hnique fea tu res,a s descr i be d b elo w .

LHCb Run1and Run2 da t a w ill si gn ifi c antlyincre as e  th e statistic s ma inly forthe fu l ly char g ed fina l stat es$B^ 0\ri g ht ar row  K ^ 0_S ( \r igh t arr ow \pi^+ \p i^ -)\pi ^+\p i ^ - $  and  $B ^+\r ighta rrow K^+\pi^- \pi ^+$, wit h anexpec tedin creas e of a bout$3 $ and $40$, res pect ively [@B 0to Ks pip i_ LHCb: 2 012iva ; @ Bto Kpipi_L HCb:201 3 iva ]. F o rthese modes, we as su m e  a  signal- to-bac k gr ou n d ratiosi mil ar t o the o nesm ea sured at  $B$ f a ct or ies (th is  may r ep res ent  an u n dere stimat ion of t he po t ential sensiti v ity of LHCb d a ta , bu t  thi s a ssumption h as a very  min o rimp a ct on  there s ul t s of our prospectiv estudy) . The  statisticalscaling fa c t o r thus d efin e dc an be appliedas su ch to dire c t $CP$ a symme tries, b ut some a d d itionalasp ect s m ust b econsidered in t he s ca ling of  un certain tie s f oroth er  observab les. For  t im e- de pen dent$ CP$ asym me tri es , t he di f ferenc e inflav ou r- t agg ing per f or m a nces  ( th e ef fec ti ve ta ggin g  ef ficienc y $Q$) sh oul d  beta ke n intoaccount. In t he  $B$-facto ry  en vironm e n t, a qua lity factor $Q_{\rm B-f a ctories } \ sim 3 0$ [ @FavourTa ggi ng_BaB ar: 2 009iva ; @Fav ourTa gg ing _ B elle: 2 0 12 iva ]was achiev e d , w hilefo r LH Cb a sm aller value is use d  ($ Q_{\rm LHCb}\si m 3$ [ @F avo u rT a ggi ng _ LHC b : 2012iva]), whic h entailsan ad ditional f a cto r$(Q_{\r m B-fac torie s }/Q_{\r m LHCb})^ {1/2} \si m3.2$ i n t he scaling  of unce rtainties .  Forb ra nchin g r atios,  L HCb  is n ot abl e  to  dire ctly c ou nt the  numb er  of $B$mesons produced, and it  is ne cessa ryto resort  to a n ormalisat ionusing fina l s tat es fo r w h ich t he b r an chi n g rat io h a s been me a su red e ls ewhere (mai n l y  at  $B$- fac t ories) . Th is additional sou r ce of uncertai ntyi s  ta ken into  a ccount in thepro je c t ion of t he  error. Fin ally, in  o u r pro specti ve stu dies, w e ad o pt the  pes sim istic vie w o fn eglecti ng  p o tentia l me as uremen ts fro m  LHC 
 from_LHCb, using_the combined Run1 and_Run2 data._We_then reassess_the_expected results including_Belle II measurements._Our method to project_uncertainties in the_two_stages is based on the statistical scaling of data samples ($1/\sqrt{N_{\rm evts}}$), corrected for_additional_factors due_to_particular_detector performances and analysis technique_features, as described below.

LHCb Run1_and Run2_data will significantly increase the statistics mainly for_the_fully charged final_states $B^0\rightarrow K^0_S(\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-)\pi^+\pi^-$ and $B^+\rightarrow K^+\pi^-\pi^+$, with an_expected increase of about $3$ and_$40$, respectively [@B0toKspipi_LHCb:2012iva; @BtoKpipi_LHCb:2013iva]._For_these_modes, we assume a_signal-to-background ratio similar to the ones_measured at $B$ factories (this may_represent an underestimation of the potential sensitivity_of LHCb data, but this assumption_has a very minor impact_on the_results of our prospective study)._The statistical scaling_factor thus_defined can be_applied as such to direct $CP$_asymmetries, but some_additional aspects must be considered in_the_scaling of uncertainties_for_other_observables. For_time-dependent $CP$ asymmetries,_the_difference in_flavour-tagging_performances (the effective tagging efficiency $Q$)_should_be taken into account. In the $B$-factory_environment, a quality factor_$Q_{\rm_B-factories} \sim 30$ [@FavourTagging_BaBar:2009iva; @FavourTagging_Belle:2012iva]_was achieved, while for LHCb_a smaller value is used ($Q_{\rm_LHCb} \sim_3$ [@FavourTagging_LHCb:2012iva]), which_entails an additional factor $(Q_{\rm B-factories}/Q_{\rm LHCb})^{1/2} \sim 3.2$ in the_scaling of uncertainties. For branching ratios,_LHCb is not able_to directly_count_the number of_$B$_mesons produced,_and it is necessary to resort to_a normalisation_using final states for which the_branching ratio has been_measured_elsewhere (mainly at $B$-factories). This additional_source of uncertainty is taken into_account in the projection of_the_error._Finally, in our prospective studies,_we adopt the pessimistic view of_neglecting potential measurements_from LHC