Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 29 references

DeckFlow: Iterative Specification on a Multimodal Generative Canvas

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A card-based infinite canvas with automatic goal decomposition improves open-ended generative AI creation over chat, while matching it on closed-ended tasks.

desk verdict Solid systems paper with a real confound: DeckFlow's open-ended-task win over ChatFlow mixes canvas interactions with automatic prompt variation, so the headline attribution is not settled by the data as presented. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15873 v1 pith:MNJH74R3 submitted 2025-06-18 cs.HC

Gregory Croisdale , Emily Huang , John Joon Young Chung , Anhong Guo , Xu Wang , Austin Z. Henley , Cyrus Omar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords generativeAIpromptengineeringtextgenerationimageaudioinfinitecanvasmultimodal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that generative AI tools fail users in three ways: they do not let people split a large creative goal into connected subtasks, combine several partial specifications for one artifact, or see and steer many outputs at once. DeckFlow answers all three with an infinite canvas of cards: a Goal Card breaks a user's sentence into labeled slots, an Action Card combines the cards attached to those slots and generates three rows of three image variants, and Clusters interpret groups of outputs back into text for the next round. In a 16-person comparison against a conversational chat baseline using the same image model, participants rated DeckFlow better for open-ended creation such as 'make a picture you would hang in your dining room,' while closed-ended reproduction tasks came out roughly even. A follow-up 7-person study added audio and found that users still specified mainly through text, generated mostly images, and reacted most strongly to audio. The paper's claim is that visual, decomposable interaction gives users more control and better creative outcomes than conversation for open-ended tasks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Action Card, a function-like card with labeled sockets that reifies a decomposed specification: each label names a feature (style, subject, lighting) and any text, image, or audio card connected to that socket constrains that feature. The Goal Card initializes this decomposition automatically from a high-level prompt, and the Cluster converts a group of outputs back into a textual description, so visual results can become future input. When triggered, the Action Card produces three prompt-variant rows of three outputs each, creating a breadth axis for exploring the generative space directly on the canvas; the paper argues that this combination is what lets users iterate by modifying one slot at a time rather than re-prompting from scratch.

What would settle it

Run the same open-ended image tasks with the chat baseline augmented to generate the same three automatic prompt variations per request, or with DeckFlow's variation rows disabled; if the preference gap in outcome or usability vanishes, the improvement is the built-in prompt generation, not the canvas.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the three design problems—task decomposition, specification decomposition, and generative space exploration—can be jointly addressed by a card-based dataflow canvas, and that this materially improves open-ended generative creation over a conversational interface. The mechanism is that a Goal Card is automatically split into an Action Card whose labeled ports accept text, image, or audio cards; triggering the card builds three prompt variants (a literal concatenation, a coherent LLM rewrite, and an aesthetics-oriented rewrite) and emits three outputs per variant; Clusters reinterpret selected outputs back into textual descriptions that feed the next iteration. The evaluation argues that this supports distinct user workflows, yields comparable results on replication tasks, and is preferred on both outcome and usability in open-ended tasks, where the generative space matters most.

Load-bearing premise

DeckFlow automatically creates three prompt variations, including an aesthetics-augmented row, while the conversational baseline only uses the user's own prompts, and the comparison treats any resulting difference as due to the interface rather than to that automatic prompt engineering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If DeckFlow's evaluation is right, designers of generative AI tools can improve open-ended creative tasks with spatial, decomposable canvases even when the underlying generative model is identical to a chat tool's.
  • Automatically generated prompt variants are a viable way to give novices a productive breadth of outputs; at least one variant row was valued for its creativity despite lower prompt adherence.
  • The Goal Card pattern is a reusable scaffold: novices who do not know how to start can have the model split a high-level goal into labeled feature slots and fill those slots incrementally.
  • Clusters that reinterpret a group of images into text provide a working bridge from visual intent to prompt language, including discovering concepts the user could not name.
  • In multimodal generation, text remains the dominant and clearest input channel even when image and audio input exist, so designers should keep a precise text fallback in every modality.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the study does not isolate automatic prompt generation, because DeckFlow builds three prompt variations while the chat baseline only uses user-authored prompts; part of the preference gap may be prompt-engineering quality rather than canvas affordances, testable by swapping identical prompt-generation logic into the chat baseline.
  • Editorial extension: if Goal Card decomposition is the active ingredient, the same decomposition could be offered inside a chat interface as structured follow-up suggestions, predicting an improvement in open-ended tasks without any canvas at all.
  • Editorial extension: the finding that audio produced the strongest emotional responses but the least precise specification suggests a division of labor across modalities—text to constrain, images to explore, audio to feel—that interface designers could exploit instead of treating modalities as interchangeable.
  • Editorial extension: several participants said they would use Clusters and Action Cards more with practice, so the short sessions may understate the tool's benefits; a longitudinal study would test whether the initial learning investment pays off.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. DeckFlow is a multimodal generative AI tool built on an infinite canvas of cards, Action Cards, Goal Cards, and Clusters, with the goal of addressing task decomposition, specification decomposition, and generative space exploration for text, image, and audio creation. The paper motivates these three design problems through a literature review and describes the DeckFlow implementation in detail. It reports two user studies: a within-subjects comparative study (n=16) against a conversational baseline (ChatFlow) for text-to-image tasks, and a multimodal behavioral study (n=7) with no baseline. The claimed contribution is that DeckFlow supports diverse workflows and improves outcomes for open-ended creative tasks, while performing similarly to ChatFlow for closed-ended tasks.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the paper would provide a useful open-source system and a well-structured vocabulary for thinking about generative AI interfaces. The three design problems are clearly articulated and the system's affordances (Goal Cards, Action Cards with labeled ports, Clusters, generative grids) are concrete and transferable. The paper also ships a reproducible implementation and an honest effort to compare against a strengthened conversational baseline. However, the evaluation evidence is weaker than the conclusions drawn: the comparative ratings are descriptive only, the multimodal study lacks any baseline, and the open-ended preference is confounded by an automatic prompt-engineering component that is absent in the baseline. These issues undermine the generalizable claims about interface affordances.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.3.2, Figure 9, §7] The conclusion in Section 7 that DeckFlow "improves outcomes for open-ended creative tasks" is not supported by the evidence presented. Figure 9 shows rating distributions, and the text reports qualitative preferences, but no inferential statistics (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank test), effect sizes, or confidence intervals are reported. The phrase "universally preferred" (Section 5.3.2) is also stronger than what the data can establish in a sample of 16 participants. Please either add appropriate statistical analyses or substantially weaken the claims to describe subjective preference in this sample.
  2. [§4.1 vs. §3.3.5] The central attribution of open-ended task preference to DeckFlow's interface is confounded with automatic prompt engineering. DeckFlow automatically constructs three prompt variants per Action Card generation, including a row based on the SuperPrompt LLM (Section 3.3.5), whereas ChatFlow relies on user-authored or user-requested prompts (Section 4.1). Participants in DeckFlow therefore did not have to write prompts themselves and received systematically varied, potentially higher-quality prompts. It is unclear whether the measured preference reflects the canvas, cards, and clusters, or simply the embedded prompt-variation system. This is not controlled for anywhere in the study design and is not discussed in the threats to validity (Section 6.4). Please add a control condition or analyze usage logs to separate these factors, or explicitly reframe the contribution of the evaluation as showing the combined system, not the interface affordances per se.
  3. [§4.2, §7] The multimodal behavioral study (n=7) has no baseline condition, yet the conclusion section states that users "decompose open-ended creative tasks which involve multiple modalities in similar, structured ways" and makes generalizable claims about multimodal generative space exploration. Without a comparison condition, these are descriptive observations about how people interact with this specific tool, not evidence that DeckFlow's design is responsible for the observed behaviors. Please temper the generalizable claims or add a comparison condition.
  4. [§5.3.1] The statement that "similar performance in closed-ended tasks" is based on the absence of a clear favorite in the rating distributions, but no equivalence test or inferential comparison is provided. The paper should either support this claim with appropriate statistical procedures for evaluating similarity/equivalence or phrase it as an observation about participant ratings rather than an established finding.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.1] The sentence "To refer to participants, we use the format nB =3" is garbled and appears to be a leftover from an earlier draft; it should be removed or clarified so that the participant naming scheme is clear.
  2. [§5.4.2] The phrase "least interrogated output" uses "interrogated" in an unusual way; consider replacing it with e.g., "least examined" or "least used output".
  3. [Figure 9 caption] The caption "(16 open-ended, 16 close-ended)" would be clearer if it stated that these are the number of task instances completed by the 16 participants in each condition, since the wording is easy to misread as 32 distinct participants.
  4. [§5.3.3] In the quote from PA 12, "since there are 3 roles every time" should likely read "3 rows every time" to match the interface terminology used elsewhere in the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the evaluation uses an external baseline and independent user data; the main validity concern is a confound, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

No circularity found. The paper's central contribution is a system and two empirical user studies. The comparative study benchmarks DeckFlow against ChatFlow, a ChatGPT-like interface using the same image-generation backend (Stable Diffusion XL Lightning), so the measured differences are not definitionally forced. The multimodal study is observational and reports usage patterns rather than deriving them from the system's specification. The three design problems are identified through a literature review, but the evaluation does not use that literature to score the system. The few self-citations (e.g., CreativeConnect and PromptPaint, which share a co-author) appear only as related work and are not load-bearing evidence for DeckFlow's claims. No parameter is fitted to the outcome, and no prediction is derived from its own inputs by construction. The uncontrolled difference between DeckFlow's automatic three-prompt variation and ChatFlow's user-authored prompts is a validity confound rather than circularity, because it does not make the measured preference equal to the interface definition; it is an alternative explanation for the observed result, not a logical identity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an HCI systems paper, so there are no free parameters or invented physical entities. The central claim rests on design assumptions about user needs (decomposition, exploration) and on the specific AI models chosen for the implementation. The most consequential dependencies are the use of GPT-4-Vision for multimodal interpretation and the automatic three-variant prompt construction, which also creates the main confound with the chat baseline.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Generative AI outputs are stochastic, so showing multiple outputs supports creative exploration.
    Section 2.3 and the design of the Action Card's 3x3 output grid assume users benefit from exploring a space of variations rather than receiving a single output.
  • domain assumption Decomposing high-level goals into labeled specifications improves user control and iteration.
    Sections 1 and 2.2 argue that decomposition helps creative work; this motivates Goal Cards and Action Cards.
  • ad hoc to paper GPT-4-Vision-Preview is an adequate multimodal interpreter for the AI Core.
    Section 3.3.4 states the authors selected GPT-4-Vision after preliminary testing; the paper's empirical results depend on this model's interpretation quality.
  • ad hoc to paper Stable Diffusion XL Lightning, SuperPrompt, and Stable Audio provide sufficient generation quality to evaluate the interface.
    Section 3.3.5 hard-codes these models; prompt quality and audio legibility directly affect user ratings and behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DeckFlow: Iterative Specification on a Multimodal Generative Canvas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MNJH74R3

@misc{pith2026250615873,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DeckFlow: Iterative Specification on a Multimodal Generative Canvas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MNJH74R3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15873}
}
read the original abstract

Generative AI promises to allow people to create high-quality personalized media. Although powerful, we identify three fundamental design problems with existing tooling through a literature review. We introduce a multimodal generative AI tool, DeckFlow, to address these problems. First, DeckFlow supports task decomposition by allowing users to maintain multiple interconnected subtasks on an infinite canvas populated by cards connected through visual dataflow affordances. Second, DeckFlow supports a specification decomposition workflow where an initial goal is iteratively decomposed into smaller parts and combined using feature labels and clusters. Finally, DeckFlow supports generative space exploration by generating multiple prompt and output variations, presented in a grid, that can feed back recursively into the next design iteration. We evaluate DeckFlow for text-to-image generation against a state-of-practice conversational AI baseline for image generation tasks. We then add audio generation and investigate user behaviors in a more open-ended creative setting with text, image, and audio outputs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15873 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DeckFlow is an infinite canvas for creating multimodal content. In this case, detailed in Section 3.1, the user drags [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cards have an Info Button which reveals informa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The Action Card and Cluster send similar requests to the AI Core, requesting input interpretation, combination, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Different workflows in DeckFlow observed in the Comparative Study (n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Some users, like PB 6, used Cluster in creative ways, beyond the Categorization specification method. • PA 6: “The cluster was helpful—didn’t use much, but I would use more if I had more time. I need to be able to try it out multiple times.” • PA 3: “The previous exper…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Users like PA 6 had issues branching their designs in ChatFlow. why you give two branches again? also the birds are white-belle not yellow and red”. Some users (nA =8) began a task with a high-detail prompt, seek￾ing to immediately create a potential final output. Some…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: PA 6 communicating the DeckFlow using ChatBot-like instructions in Hard Task B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Rating scale results for post-task analysis in the Comparative Study (16 open-ended, 16 close-ended). PA 6 rated ChatFlow very poorly in ease of use for the open-ended task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: User evaluations of their outputs, (15 total) during the post [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Adapted Creativity Support Index across modalities in the Multimodality Study n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bias in generative ai,

    M. Zhou, V. Abhishek, T. Derdenger, J. Kim, and K. Srinivasan, “Bias in generative ai, ” 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Blender features,

    Blender Foundation, “Blender features, ”blender.org

    work page

  3. [3]

    Figma design features,

    “Figma design features, ”Figma

    work page

  4. [4]

    Code bubbles: a working set-based in- terface for code understanding and maintenance,

    A. Bragdon, R. Zeleznik, S. P. Reiss, S. Karumuri, W. Cheung, J. Kaplan, C. Cole- man, F. Adeputra, and J. J. LaViola Jr, “Code bubbles: a working set-based in- terface for code understanding and maintenance, ” inProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2503–2512, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Let’s go to the whiteboard: how and why software developers use drawings,

    M. Cherubini, G. Venolia, R. DeLine, and A. J. Ko, “Let’s go to the whiteboard: how and why software developers use drawings, ” inProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’07, (New York, NY, USA), p. 557–566, Association for Computing Machinery, 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    The prompt report: A systematic survey of prompting techniques,

    S. Schulhoff, M. Ilie, N. Balepur, K. Kahadze, A. Liu, C. Si, Y. Li, A. Gupta, H. Han, S. Schulhoff, P. S. Dulepet, S. Vidyadhara, D. Ki, S. Agrawal, C. Pham, G. Kroiz, F. Li, H. Tao, A. Srivastava, H. D. Costa, S. Gupta, M. L. Rogers, I. Goncearenco, G. Sarli, I. Galynker, D. Peskoff, M. Carpuat, J. White, S. Anadkat, A. Hoyle, and P. Resnik, “The prompt...

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Promptify: Text-to-image generation through interactive prompt exploration with large language models,

    S. Brade, B. Wang, M. Sousa, S. Oore, and T. Grossman, “Promptify: Text-to-image generation through interactive prompt exploration with large language models, ” inProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’23, (New York, NY, USA), Association for Computing Machinery, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Comfyui,

    Comfy Org, “Comfyui, ” 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Chain- forge: A visual toolkit for prompt engineering and llm hypothesis testing,

    I. Arawjo, C. Swoopes, P. Vaithilingam, M. Wattenberg, and E. Glassman, “Chain- forge: A visual toolkit for prompt engineering and llm hypothesis testing, ” 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Sensecape: Enabling multilevel exploration and sensemaking with large language models,

    S. Suh, B. Min, S. Palani, and H. Xia, “Sensecape: Enabling multilevel exploration and sensemaking with large language models, ” inProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’23, p. 1–18, ACM, Oct. 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Gemini Powers tldraw’s

    “Gemini Powers tldraw’s "Natural Language Computing" Experience, ”Google AI for Developers

  4. [12]

    Creativeconnect: Supporting reference recombination for graphic design ideation with generative ai,

    D. Choi, S. Hong, J. Park, J. J. Y. Chung, and J. Kim, “Creativeconnect: Supporting reference recombination for graphic design ideation with generative ai, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11949, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cueflik: interactive concept learning in image search,

    J. Fogarty, D. Tan, A. Kapoor, and S. Winder, “Cueflik: interactive concept learning in image search, ” inProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’08, (New York, NY, USA), p. 29–38, Association for Computing Machinery, 2008

    2008

  6. [14]

    Promptpaint: Steering text-to-image generation through paint medium-like interactions,

    J. J. Y. Chung and E. Adar, “Promptpaint: Steering text-to-image generation through paint medium-like interactions, ” inProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’23, (New York, NY, USA), Association for Computing Machinery, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Promptcharm: Text-to-image generation through multi-modal prompting and refinement,

    Z. Wang, Y. Huang, D. Song, L. Ma, and T. Zhang, “Promptcharm: Text-to-image generation through multi-modal prompting and refinement, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04014, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Structured generation and exploration of design space with large language models for human-ai co-creation,

    S. Suh, M. Chen, B. Min, T. J.-J. Li, and H. Xia, “Structured generation and exploration of design space with large language models for human-ai co-creation, ” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2024. Croisdale et al

    2024

  9. [17]

    Interactive program synthesis by augmented examples,

    T. Zhang, L. Lowmanstone, X. Wang, and E. L. Glassman, “Interactive program synthesis by augmented examples, ” inProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Sym- posium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’20, (New York, NY, USA), p. 627–648, Association for Computing Machi...

    2020

  10. [18]

    Dimensional reasoning and research design spaces,

    S. MacNeil, J. Okerlund, and C. Latulipe, “Dimensional reasoning and research design spaces, ” inProceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativ- ity and Cognition, C&C ’17, (New York, NY, USA), p. 367–379, Association for Computing Machinery, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Design galleries: A general approach to setting parameters for computer graphics and animation,

    J. Marks, B. Andalman, P. Beardsley, W. Freeman, S. Gibson, J. Hodgins, T. Kang, B. Mirtich, H. Pfister, and W. Ruml, “Design galleries: A general approach to setting parameters for computer graphics and animation, ” inSIGGRAPH, pp. 389– 400, 1997

    1997

  12. [20]

    Designscape: Design with interactive layout suggestions,

    P. O’Donovan, A. Agarwala, and A. Hertzmann, “Designscape: Design with interactive layout suggestions, ” inCHI, pp. 1221–1224, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Prompting for discovery: Flexible sense-making for ai art-making with dreamsheets,

    S. G. Almeda, J. Zamfirescu-Pereira, K. W. Kim, P. Mani Rathnam, and B. Hart- mann, “Prompting for discovery: Flexible sense-making for ai art-making with dreamsheets, ” inProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems, CHI ’24, (New York, NY, USA), ...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Stable audio open,

    Z. Evans, J. D. Parker, C. Carr, Z. Zukowski, J. Taylor, and J. Pons, “Stable audio open, ” 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Worldsmith: Iterative and expressive prompting for world building with a generative ai,

    H. Dang, F. Brudy, G. Fitzmaurice, and F. Anderson, “Worldsmith: Iterative and expressive prompting for world building with a generative ai, ” inProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 1–17, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Genquery: Supporting expres- sive visual search with generative models,

    K. Son, D. Choi, T. S. Kim, Y.-H. Kim, and J. Kim, “Genquery: Supporting expres- sive visual search with generative models, ” 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Stable Diffusion Web UI,

    AUTOMATIC1111, “Stable Diffusion Web UI, ” Aug. 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Ganzilla: User-driven direction discovery in genera- tive adversarial networks,

    N. Evirgen and X. A. Chen, “Ganzilla: User-driven direction discovery in genera- tive adversarial networks, ” inProceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’22, (New York, NY, USA), Associa- tion for Computing Machinery, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the creativity support index,

    E. Cherry and C. Latulipe, “Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the creativity support index, ”ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., vol. 21, jun 2014

    2014

  20. [29]

    An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image genera- tion using textual inversion,

    R. Gal, Y. Alaluf, Y. Atzmon, O. Patashnik, A. H. Bermano, G. Chechik, and D. Cohen-Or, “An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image genera- tion using textual inversion, ” 2022

    2022

  21. [30]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

    E. J. Hu, Y. Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y. Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models, ” 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.