{"id":"c37cae63-8ac3-4fed-886d-5e9056a8fefd","arxiv_id":"2507.21294","paper_version":1,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"LOW","novelty_score":6.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":6,"one_line_summary":"Zone-sectored rubrene crystals show sector-dependent photoluminescence and a 646 nm band with 3.7 ns lifetime attributed to coherent triplet-pair emission.","lead":"Researchers grew rubrene microcrystals that show patterned hourglass zones with different light emission, which they trace to how the crystal lattice is oriented in each zone. The result offers a material-based route to study exciton transport and could be useful for organic photonics and light harvesting.","discovery_kind":"new_method","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The 646 nm band is attributed to a geminate coherent triplet pair, but the supporting evidence is circumstantial and the paper's own ref. 55 (Bossanyi et al.) explicitly finds no triplet-pair emission in pristine orthorhombic rubrene; the abstract overstates a tentative interpretation.","rationale":"The reader's strongest_claim correctly includes the triplet-pair origin of the 646 nm band, but the reader's weakest_assumption focused on the structural assignment rather than on the mechanistic attribution. The structural assignment is indeed unverified, but the sector-rotation explanation could in principle be fixed by diffraction. The triplet-pair emission claim is more load-bearing for the paper's headline conclusion, and it is directly challenged by ref. 55, which the paper cites without reconciliation. That is why I flag it as the single most load-bearing concern. Nevertheless, the paper does contain reproducible-looking observations of zone-sectored PL with distinct spectra and kinetics, and the authors themselves use 'tentatively interpret' in the discussion. The abstract overstates this tentativeness, but the data may still support a conditional conclusion. The reader's CONDITIONAL verdict remains appropriate: the paper should be accepted only if the triplet-pair attribution is reconciled with ref. 55 or explicitly downgraded to a hypothesis, and if the structural assignment is independently confirmed. The proposed magnetic-field test would settle the coherence part of the claim; a micro-XRD measurement would settle the structural part.","tokens_in":15389,"tokens_out":6815,"duration_ms":89393,"concrete_test":"On a b-oriented hourglass crystal, measure the 646 nm band's FLIM kinetics and integrated intensity as a function of applied static magnetic field from 0 to 500 mT, keeping all other settings fixed. A coherent geminate triplet-pair state with total spin zero should show a magnetic-field-dependent yield and/or quantum-beating signature, as in Wolf et al. If the 3.7 ns component and its amplitude are field-independent, the coherent triplet-pair interpretation is not supported. As a complementary control, repeat the measurement on a crystal whose orientation is confirmed by micro-XRD and compare the result with the pristine-crystal behavior reported by Bossanyi et al.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central mechanistic claim is that the 646 nm band originates from direct emission of a geminate coherent triplet pair, or from its fusion. The evidence offered is (i) strong c-polarisation, (ii) a 3.7 ns mono-exponential component, and (iii) agreement with Wolf et al.'s 4 ns triplet-pair lifetime. Each point is circumstantial. The paper itself cites ref. 55 (Bossanyi et al., 'Singlet fission is incoherent in pristine orthorhombic single crystals of rubrene: no evidence of triplet-pair emission') but never addresses its directly contrary conclusion. Moreover, the disjunctive phrasing 'direct emission ... or from its fusion' makes the claim difficult to falsify, because any delayed fluorescence from triplet-triplet fusion would also be consistent with the second branch. The 'pure mono-exponential dynamics' is also not what Eq. (2) shows: the 646 nm kinetics are fit with four terms (exponential, power-law, bimolecular, offset), and Table 1 reports no uncertainties on any parameter. If the 3.7 ns component is instead a trap-state emission or an extrinsic band, the abstract's central attribution collapses even though the zone-sectored PL observations would remain.","agreement_with_reader":"partial"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","summary":"The paper reports a growth method for orthorhombic rubrene microcrystals that exhibit \"hourglass\" sector-zoned domains (diamond and triangular) visible in fluorescence but not in morphology. Using polarized optical microscopy, spectrally resolved PL, FLIM, and AFM, the authors classify two crystal types (c-oriented and b-oriented), attribute the sector contrast to slight rotations of the orthorhombic unit cell, and claim that a redshifted 646 nm band is strongly c-polarized, decays mono-exponentially with a 3.7 ns lifetime, and originates from direct emission of a geminate coherent triplet pair or from its fusion. The PL kinetics are fitted with a three-term model (exponential, power-law, bimolecular, plus offset) to extract sector-dependent parameters.","tokens_in":15696,"tokens_out":2523,"duration_ms":30182,"significance":"If the central claims hold, the paper introduces a new type of rubrene crystal platform with spatially resolved exciton dynamics that could be useful for studying triplet-pair states and triplet transport. The sector-dependent optical contrast and the apparent c-polarized red band are interesting observations. The paper is honest in places, e.g., it states that SAED was cumbersome and that the sector-rotation angles are estimated from the same fluorescence contrast they are meant to explain. However, the two load-bearing claims—the structural rotation between sectors and the triplet-pair origin of the 646 nm band—are not independently confirmed, and the latter is presented in a disjunctive way that is difficult to falsify. The paper would benefit from direct structural evidence (e.g., single-crystal XRD or improved SAED) and a more cautious framing of the band assignment, including an explicit discussion of ref. 55, which directly contradicts the triplet-pair emission interpretation.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The abstract and Section 4.2 state that the 646 nm band exhibits \"pure mono-exponential dynamics\" with a 3.7 ns lifetime. This is contradicted by the fitting function in Eq. (2), which includes an exponential plus a power-law term plus a bimolecular term plus an offset. The exponential term is only one component of a multi-term fit, and Table 1 reports no uncertainties on τ, n, or T0γ. Without error bars or goodness-of-fit measures, the claim of a specific mono-exponential lifetime for this band is not established. Please provide confidence intervals or a statistical justification for separating the exponential from the overlapping power-law and bimolecular contributions.","section":"§4.2, Eq. (2), Table 1, Fig. 5"},{"comment":"The sector rotation angle is derived from the fluorescence intensity ratio via θ = arccos(sqrt(IDmax/ITmax)) and is then used to explain the sector-dependent spectra and the intensity variation of the 646 nm band. This is a self-consistency loop rather than an independent measurement of the lattice orientation. The paper admits that SAED was cumbersome, but the structural interpretation—a rotation of the orthorhombic unit cell around the a- or b-axis—is a load-bearing element of the sector-resolved exciton-dynamics story. Without direct crystallographic confirmation, the rotation angles and the resulting explanation of the sector-dependent 646 nm intensity remain speculative. Please provide independent structural evidence (e.g., XRD on a single crystal, or at least a clearer statement that the rotation is a hypothesis) or soften the claims accordingly.","section":"§4.2, Eq. for θ, Section 4.1"},{"comment":"The attribution of the 646 nm band to direct emission of a geminate coherent triplet pair or to its fusion is presented as the central mechanistic claim, but the supporting evidence is circumstantial: strong c-polarisation, a ~3.7 ns exponential component, and agreement with the 4 ns lifetime in ref. [13]. The paper cites ref. [55] (Bossanyi et al.), which explicitly concludes \"no evidence of triplet-pair emission\" in pristine orthorhombic rubrene, but does not address this contrary result. Moreover, the disjunctive phrasing \"direct emission ... or from its fusion\" makes the claim unfalsifiable, because any delayed fluorescence from triplet-triplet fusion would be consistent with the second branch. The alternative explanation of a trap state or an extrinsic band is dismissed only with a weak argument (the long-time kinetics match the other bands), which is expected if the same fitting function with a shared power-law/bimolecular part is applied. Please either provide a direct test that distinguishes triplet-pair emission from fusion-mediated delayed fluorescence, or substantially weaken the abstract's claim.","section":"§4.2, last paragraph; ref. [55]"},{"comment":"The conclusion states that the detected photons \"originate either from direct emission of geminate coherent triplet pairs or upon fusion of it, exhibiting pure mono-exponential dynamics with 3.7 ns lifetime.\" This sentence conflates the two sub-processes and overstates the mono-exponential attribute. The paper's own data show a multi-exponential/functional decay for the λ>600 nm window, and the 646 nm band is only one peak in that window. Please revise the abstract and conclusion to describe the observed kinetics accurately, e.g., as a decay that includes a fast ~3.7 ns component followed by power-law and bimolecular phases.","section":"Section 4.2 and Conclusion"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The phrase \"high photon absorption due to the alignment of excitation polarisation and transition dipole moment\" is redundant and could be simplified to \"strong absorption when the excitation polarisation aligns with the transition dipole moment.\"","section":"Title/Abstract"},{"comment":"Table 1 lists fit parameters without uncertainties or the fit range used. Please add error estimates and state the time window over which each fit was performed (e.g., t>2 ns for λ>600 nm, t>3 ns for λ<600 nm).","section":"Section 4.2, Table 1"},{"comment":"Eq. (1) includes an offset term, but the text refers to it as \"Equation 2\" in places (e.g., \"See Equation 2\"). Please correct the cross-reference.","section":"Section 4.1, Eq. (1)"},{"comment":"In the caption of Fig. 4, the sentence \"For the detection along the a-axis, the acquisition time is 50 times longer than along the c-axis\" is clear, but the figure itself does not visibly mark which panel uses the longer acquisition time; consider adding a note in the figure or caption for clarity.","section":"Section 4.2, Fig. 4"},{"comment":"Reference [47] is cited for the (101) facets and step heights, but the same reference is not listed in the bibliography; please check the numbering and ensure all cited works appear in the reference list.","section":"Introduction/References"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The paper presents interesting experimental observations, but the two central scientific claims are currently under-supported. The sector-rotation interpretation is circular as presented, and the triplet-pair assignment for the 646 nm band conflicts with a directly relevant prior study (ref. 55) that is cited but not discussed. These issues are fixable—e.g., by adding direct structural evidence, providing a more falsifiable band-assignment argument, and tempering the abstract—so I believe major revision is appropriate rather than rejection."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"The thing to know is that the hourglass zone-sectored rubrene microcrystals are real and worth a look, but the paper's headline claim about the 646 nm band being coherent triplet-pair emission is more tentative than the abstract lets on. In the body the authors say \"we tentatively interpret\" and offer two possible origins (direct triplet-pair emission or fusion). The abstract drops the qualifier and states it as fact. That's a mismatch.\n\nWhat's genuinely new: the growth method produces tabular orthorhombic rubrene crystals with diamond and triangular sectors that differ in orientation, and the authors use polarised microscopy, FLIM, and AFM to show these sectors have distinct PL spectra, lifetimes, and exciton fusion kinetics. That spatially resolved mapping is new for rubrene and could be a useful platform for studying singlet fission and triplet transport. The kinetic analysis with geminate power-law decay and non-geminate bimolecular fusion is standard in this field and the fits look reasonable. They also report the 646 nm band is strongly c-polarised and has a ~3.7 ns mono-exponential component, which is a concrete, interesting observation.\n\nSoft spots, in proportion: (1) The structural story is inferred, not diffractively confirmed. SAED failed on these crystals, so they lean on crystal habit and AFM step heights to assign c- vs b-oriented, and they extract the sector rotation angle from the same fluorescence intensity ratio they then use to explain sector contrast. That is a self-consistency loop. It doesn't kill the paper, because the sector-dependent spectral and kinetic differences stand on their own, but the \"rotation angle\" numbers should be treated as estimates. (2) The mechanistic attribution of the 646 nm band to a coherent triplet pair is circumstantial: c-polarisation, ~3.7 ns lifetime matching Wolf et al.'s 4 ns, and a red-shift. The paper cites Bossanyi et al. (ref 55) which explicitly finds no triplet-pair emission in pristine orthorhombic rubrene, and it never addresses that contradiction. The disjunctive phrasing also makes the claim hard to falsify. (3) Table 1 has no uncertainties on any fit parameter, and the \"pure mono-exponential\" phrasing in the abstract is misleading because the fit in Eq. 2 includes a power law, a bimolecular term, and an offset.\n\nOverall, the central observation—zone-sectored rubrene crystals with spatially resolved exciton dynamics—is solid and likely reproducible. The interpretation of the 646 nm band is speculative and should be framed as such. This paper deserves a serious referee; the referee should push for either diffraction confirmation or a softer claim, and for the authors to engage directly with Bossanyi et al. I'd bring it to a reading group if we're discussing singlet fission or organic crystal growth, and I'd cite it for the sectoring result, not for the triplet-pair emission.","headline":"Zone-sectored rubrene crystals are a real, potentially useful new platform with solid microscopy and kinetics data, but the abstract overstates a tentative triplet-pair interpretation that the paper's own cited literature contradicts.","tokens_in":16234,"tokens_out":2254,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":23580,"reading_group":"yes","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"In a newly grown type of zone-sectored rubrene microcrystal, the redshifted 646 nm photoluminescence band is strongly c-polarised, decays with a single 3.7 ns lifetime, and is assigned to direct emission from a geminate coherent triplet…","keywords":["rubrene","FLIM","AFM","triplet exciton migration","triplet exciton fusion","singlet fission","zone-sectored crystals","photoluminescence"],"falsifier":"A decisive test is to record the 646 nm band from a fresh b-oriented triangular sector under c-polarised detection while sweeping an external magnetic field: the triplet-pair assignment predicts a strictly mono-exponential 3.7 ns decay that responds to the field with quantum beats or a field-dependent lifetime, so seeing a non-exponential decay or no field response would overturn the central claim.","tokens_in":15189,"feed_emoji":"💎","tokens_out":14038,"duration_ms":137989,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"This paper reports a growth method that produces thin, flat rubrene microcrystals in the orthorhombic phase with an hourglass pattern of diamond-shaped and triangular sectors that are invisible in surface topography but differ strongly in photoluminescence. The sector contrast is attributed to small rotations of the orthorhombic unit cell relative to the crystal surface, which reorient the molecular transition dipoles. The central claim is that the long-wavelength 646 nm emission band, strongest in the triangular sectors of b-oriented crystals, is c-polarised and decays with a purely mono-exponential 3.7 ns lifetime, identifying it as direct emission from a geminate coherent triplet pair or from fusion of that pair rather than from a trap state. The time-resolved data are modelled with a rate equation combining mono-exponential decay, a power-law geminate-fusion term with exponent near -1.5, and a non-geminate bimolecular fusion term, giving sector-dependent triplet kinetics. If correct, the crystals provide a material platform for studying triplet exciton transport and fission-fusion dynamics directly on a substrate, with consequences for organic photonics and light harvesting.","feed_headline":"Rubrene's 646 nm glow traced to a 3.7 ns triplet pair","feed_subtitle":"Zone-sectored rubrene crystals expose c-polarised triplet-pair emission, a probe for exciton transport.","key_machinery":"The load-bearing object is the geminate coherent triplet pair (TT) state with total spin zero, formed within picoseconds by singlet fission and living about 3.7 ns before separating into uncorrelated triplet excitons. The paper treats direct radiative decay of this TT state, red-shifted by Herzberg-Teller coupling, as the source of the 646 nm band. The quantitative engine is the three-term rate equation $\\text{Signal} = A_0 e^{-t/\\tau} + A_1 t^n + A_2 (1+T_0\\gamma)^{-2} + \\text{offset}$, whose terms respectively capture mono-exponential triplet-pair emission, geminate fusion with power-law exponent $n \\approx -1.5$ (three-dimensional diffusion), and non-geminate bimolecular fusion with parameter $T_0\\gamma$. Sector orientation is tracked through the polarisation ratio $\\theta = \\arccos(\\sqrt{I_D^{max}/I_T^{max}})$.","core_discovery":"The paper's central discovery is that the anomalous 646 nm band in rubrene is not a defect or trap emission but direct radiative recombination of a spin-zero geminate coherent triplet pair, or of its fusion product, with a decay time of about 3.7 ns. The evidence is that the band is strongly polarised along the c-axis, its early decay is purely mono-exponential with $\\tau \\approx 3.7$ ns, and its later time evolution follows the same geminate and non-geminate triplet-fusion kinetics as the ordinary singlet bands. The authors also report that hourglass-shaped crystals grow in two orientations, a weakly emitting c-oriented type and a bright b-oriented type, and that within a single crystal the diamond and triangular sectors correspond to slightly rotated orthorhombic unit cells, so exciton dynamics can be resolved sector by sector. They infer rotation angles up to about $45^\\circ$ from the ratio of sector fluorescence maxima and find that triangular sectors of b-oriented crystals show stronger non-geminate fusion rates, which they interpret as shorter triplet migration pathways.","pith_inferences":["Editorial inference: If the 646 nm assignment is correct, magnetic-field-dependent measurements on these b-oriented hourglass crystals should show quantum beats or a field-sensitive 3.7 ns component; the paper reports prior quantum-beat work on rubrene but does not apply a field here.","Editorial inference: The inferred sector rotation angles rest on comparing fluorescence maxima rather than on direct structure, so a diffraction map of a single hourglass crystal would settle whether the sectors really are rotated domains or instead differ in thickness, strain, or local packing.","Editorial inference: Since both sectors show the same power-law exponent but different $T_0\\gamma$, the sector contrast in kinetics may reflect differences in initial exciton density from polarisation-dependent absorption rather than differences in diffusion dimensionality; comparing sector kinetics at matched excitation densities would test this.","Editorial inference: The hourglass sectoring mechanism, borrowed from mineralogy, may be a general growth phenomenon in flat organic crystals; if so, similar zone-sector patterns could be induced in other singlet-fission materials by tuning anisotropic growth speeds."],"forward_implications":["The 646 nm band becomes a direct, spectrally isolated clock for the coherent triplet-pair state in rubrene, since its 3.7 ns mono-exponential decay measures the pair lifetime without interference from ordinary singlet emission.","Conventional c-oriented rubrene crystals hide this band because the c-axis points out of the surface; the b-oriented crystals presented here bring the c-polarised triplet-pair emission into the detection plane, making the previously 'anomalous' band a routine observable.","The power-law exponent $n \\approx -1.5$ measured in both sectors indicates that triplet excitons explore the crystal in three dimensions, even in a tabular microcrystal whose macroscopic shape is two-dimensional.","The sector-dependent $T_0\\gamma$ values indicate different effective triplet migration or initial triplet densities in diamond versus triangular sectors, connecting crystal microstructure to exciton kinetics."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Reports the exponential ~4 ns decay and magnetic-field quantum beats assigned to a coherent triplet pair state; the paper uses this to assign the 646 nm band.","marker":"[13]"},{"why":"Establishes geminate exciton fusion fluorescence as a probe of triplet transport and notes the sub-50 ns decay of the 650 nm band; the paper's power-law geminate term extends this framework.","marker":"[18]"},{"why":"Assigns the 564 nm c-polarised zero-phonon band and discusses energy trapping; the paper builds its band assignments and trap-state argument on it.","marker":"[20]"},{"why":"Provides the picosecond timescale for singlet fission in rubrene single crystals, used when interpreting the fast initial decay as fission.","marker":"[15]"},{"why":"Supplies the crystal habit and growth-shape analysis of orthorhombic rubrene used to assign c-oriented versus b-oriented phases and the eight-pyramid growth model.","marker":"[40]"},{"why":"Explains the dark appearance of c-oriented crystals through out-of-plane transition dipoles and the 600 nm vibrationally induced band; the paper leans on it for orientation-dependent emission.","marker":"[46]"},{"why":"Provides rubrene microcrystal surface morphology and facet assignments that corroborate the orientation assignment through step heights.","marker":"[47]"},{"why":"Supplies the bimolecular triplet decay equation used for the non-geminate fusion term in the rate-equation model.","marker":"[53]"},{"why":"Explains the red shift of triplet-pair emission through Herzberg-Teller coupling and avoided crossing of singlet and triplet pair states.","marker":"[58]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Rubrene's 646 nm band pinned to geminate triplet pairs","Zone-sectored rubrene reveals triplet-pair emission at 3.7 ns","Geminate triplet pair emits 646 nm light in rubrene sectors","Triplet fusion clocked at 3.7 ns in rubrene sectors","Sector-resolved rubrene exposes coherent triplet-pair decay"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"Everything hinges on the claim that the visible sectors are just different rotations of the same crystal lattice, an inference drawn from crystal shape, step heights, and brightness rather than from directly measuring the atomic arrangement; if that rotation is wrong, the sector-dependent exciton dynamics have no explained cause.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Rubrene's 646 nm band pinned to geminate triplet pairs","Zone-sectored rubrene reveals triplet-pair emission at 3.7 ns","Geminate triplet pair emits 646 nm light in rubrene sectors","Triplet fusion clocked at 3.7 ns in rubrene sectors","Sector-resolved rubrene exposes coherent triplet-pair decay"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.000845,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":3726,"prompt_tokens":1041,"completion_tokens":2685,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":657,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":2589}},"tokens_in":657,"tokens_out":2685,"duration_ms":20227,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":2589,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-06T18:14:19.701651+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"A decisive test is to record the 646 nm band from a fresh b-oriented triangular sector under c-polarised detection while sweeping an external magnetic field: the triplet-pair assignment predicts a strictly mono-exponential 3.7 ns decay that responds to the field with quantum beats or a field-dependent lifetime, so seeing a non-exponential decay or no field response would overturn the central claim.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"Wolf, Drew M","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Reports the exponential ~4 ns decay and magnetic-field quantum beats assigned to a coherent triplet pair state; the paper uses this to assign the 646 nm band."},{"cited_title":"Wolf and Ivan Biaggio","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Establishes geminate exciton fusion fluorescence as a probe of triplet transport and notes the sub-50 ns decay of the 650 nm band; the paper's power-law geminate term extends this framework."},{"cited_title":"Michel-Beyerle, and Gagik G","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Assigns the 564 nm c-polarised zero-phonon band and discusses energy trapping; the paper builds its band assignments and trap-state argument on it."},{"cited_title":"Michel-Beyerle, and Gagik G","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the picosecond timescale for singlet fission in rubrene single crystals, used when interpreting the fast initial decay as fission."},{"cited_title":"The crystalline state of rubrene materials: intermolecular recognition, isomorphism, polymorphism, and periodic bond-chain analysis of morphologies","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the crystal habit and growth-shape analysis of orthorhombic rubrene used to assign c-oriented versus b-oriented phases and the eight-pyramid growth model."},{"cited_title":"Absorption and photo- luminescence spectroscopy of rubrene single crystals","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Explains the dark appearance of c-oriented crystals through out-of-plane transition dipoles and the 600 nm vibrationally induced band; the paper leans on it for orientation-dependent emission."},{"cited_title":"Rubrene microcrystals: A route to investigate surface morphology and bulk anisotropies of organic semicon- ductors","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides rubrene microcrystal surface morphology and facet assignments that corroborate the orientation assignment through step heights."},{"cited_title":"Triplet ex- citon dynamics in rubrene single crystals","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the bimolecular triplet decay equation used for the non-geminate fusion term in the rate-equation model."},{"cited_title":"Musser, Sam L","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Explains the red shift of triplet-pair emission through Herzberg-Teller coupling and avoided crossing of singlet and triplet pair states."}],"review_version":1}