Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Random sequential adsorption of spheres on a cylinder

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper pinpoints how a cylinder's radius ratio governs the jamming coverage of spheres, which stays below the flat-plane value and makes the 2D density peak at intermediate curvature.

desk verdict Solid RSA-on-cylinder paper with believable experiments and a clean mapping, but the high-curvature predictions rest on an unchecked kinetic exponent and should be treated as predictions, not settled results. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05350 v1 pith:HNT6IEVG submitted 2019-08-14 cond-mat.soft q-bio.BM

Edvin Memet , Nabila Tanjeem , Charlie Greboval , Vinothan N. Manoharan , L. Mahadevan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softq-bio.BM
keywords randomsequentialadsorptioncylinderwirecurvaturejammingcoveragecolloidalsphereschiralorderingnon-monotonicirreversible
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 asks how tightly equal spheres can randomly pack onto a long cylindrical wire when they stick irreversibly where they first touch, the process known as random sequential adsorption. By unrolling the cylinder into a strip and treating each sphere as an oblong shape in the angle–axis plane, the authors reduce the problem to a 2D parking problem controlled by one number, the ratio r̃ = r/R. They find that the long-time (jamming) coverage in 3D increases monotonically with r̃ and always lies below the familiar flat-plane value, while the 2D area coverage is non-monotonic, peaking at an intermediate curvature. Colloidal experiments on silica wires confirm the predicted linear particle density and the below-plane coverage for weak to moderate curvature. The result matters because it gives a parameter-free prediction for a basic deposition geometry seen in dental plaque, sea-grapes, and coated wires.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exact mapping of the 3D adsorption problem onto a 2D random sequential adsorption process in the φ–z plane. A sphere centered at (z0, φ0) becomes a lens-shaped exclusion zone with boundary φ(z) = φ0 ± arcsin[√(R² − (z − z0)²)/(R + r)], and the cylinder becomes a periodic strip of width 2π. Simulations deposit these shapes randomly on the strip, and the asymptotic particle number is extracted from the universal kinetics ρ∞ − ρ(τ) ~ $τ^{{−1/2}}$ for two-degree-of-freedom parking. The conversion between the 2D and 3D coverages is carried by the one-parameter formulas ρ(2D)(r̃) = λ(r̃)Ã(r̃)/(2π) and ρ(3D)(r̃) = λ(r̃)/(3(1 + r̃)).

What would settle it

A direct simulation or experiment at very high curvature (r̃ ≲ 0.05) that measures the approach to jamming over many decades of time: if the exponent in ρ∞ − ρ(τ) ~ $τ^{{−1/d_f}}$ drifts away from d_f = 2 toward d_f = 1 as the wire thins, the extrapolated N∞ and hence the reported coverage curves are not the true asymptotic values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that random sequential adsorption of spheres on a cylinder is not a small perturbation of flat-surface parking: the asymptotic coverage depends on the ratio of sphere radius to cylinder radius, with ρ(3D)_∞ decreasing monotonically as the wire gets thinner and approaching ≈0.3647 on a plane, while the unwrapped 2D coverage ρ(2D)_∞ rises from the thin-wire limit, overshoots the planar value, and then falls back to ≈0.5471. The non-monotonicity follows from the product of two competing factors: the per-sphere angular area shrinks with r̃, while the saturated linear density grows because the maximum angular extent of a sphere decreases. Simulations show ρ(3D)_∞ increasing monotonically with r̃, and experiments with electrostatically and DNA-bound colloidal spheres match the predicted linear density over the accessible range r̃ ≳ 0.2. At short scales the adsorbed structures show weak chiral ordering with the preferred alignment angle obeying tan θ_max ≈ 3r̃.

Load-bearing premise

The asymptotic particle number is obtained by extrapolating finite-time simulations using the law ρ∞ − ρ(τ) ~ $τ^{{−1/2}}$, which assumes the effective number of degrees of freedom stays at two for every wire curvature; if the kinetics slow to one-dimensional behavior for very thin wires, the extrapolated coverages would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 3D jamming coverage ρ(3D)_∞ increases monotonically with r̃ and never reaches the flat-plane limit of ≈0.3647, so any cylindrical curvature loosens the adsorbed monolayer in 3D.
  • The 2D coverage ρ(2D)_∞ is non-monotonic: it overshoots the planar disk value ≈0.5471 at intermediate r̃, a distinctive signature of the competition between per-sphere area and angular packing.
  • For very thin wires the random-parking density sits at about 61% of the densest possible packing, a ratio that stays near 0.62 across r̃ values.
  • Short-range order in the jammed state is chiral, with the preferred pitch angle obeying tan θ_max ≈ 3r̃, so wire curvature biases the local alignment of neighboring spheres.
  • The mapping to 2D RSA with shape (1) provides a parameter-free recipe to compute the coverage for any wire–sphere radius ratio without simulating the full 3D deposition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The τ^{−1/2} extrapolation assumes two degrees of freedom down to arbitrarily thin wires; if quasi-1D kinetics emerge for r̃ → 0, the extrapolated N∞ and the reported non-monotonic peak of ρ(2D)_∞ could shift, so the high-curvature predictions remain the least secure part of the paper.
  • The experimental undersaturation at small r̃ hints that binding-energy decrease with curvature sets a practical irreversibility limit; using stronger bonds (covalent or longer DNA) could push experiments into the high-curvature regime and test the simulated coverage directly.
  • The method transfers to other convex particles (ellipsoids, rods) on a cylinder: one only needs the angular envelope shape, so the same equation (1) input could predict coverage families for different particle shapes.
  • The linear pitch-angle law tan θ_max ≈ 3r̃ offers a cheap experimental route to verifying the chiral ordering: count neighbor-center angles in 2D projection images of adsorbed spheres, no 3D reconstruction needed.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies random sequential adsorption (RSA) of hard spheres on a long cylinder of radius r, with sphere radius R, parameterized by r̃ = r/R. It maps the process to RSA of two-dimensional shapes on a strip in the φ–z plane, derives coverage formulas ρ(2D) and ρ(3D), and obtains asymptotic coverage from simulations extrapolated using the τ^{-1/2} law. Experiments with electrostatic and DNA-mediated binding of colloidal spheres to silica wires validate the predicted linear density and 3D coverage for r̃ ≳ 0.2. For high curvature (r̃ ≲ 0.2), simulations predict non-monotonic ρ(2D)∞ and monotonic ρ(3D)∞. The paper also reports weak chiral ordering, with tan θmax ≈ 3 r̃.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a parameter-free prediction of curvature-dependent RSA coverage, validated by two independent experimental chemistries, and identifies a surprising non-monotonic 2D coverage. The geometric mapping is elegant, the simulation methodology is standard, and the experimental protocols are detailed, including error bars that account for particle-counting uncertainty. However, the high-curvature predictions rest on an unverified kinetic extrapolation, and the chiral ordering law is reported without statistical uncertainty. The experimental validation covers only the weak-to-moderate curvature regime, so the high-curvature claims remain purely predictive.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results, kinetics paragraph and Eq. (4)] The asymptotic values ρ(2D)∞ and ρ(3D)∞ at r̃ ≲ 0.2 are obtained by extrapolating finite-time simulation data with the law ρ∞−ρ(τ) ∼ τ^{-1/2}, which assumes df = 2 for all r̃. The paper's only defense is the sentence 'we do not observe a crossover to 1D asymptotic kinetics in our simulations as r̃ → 0,' but no exponent measurement, no local-slope analysis, and no supporting figure is provided. If the effective dimension crosses to df = 1 at small r̃, the τ^{-1/2} fit systematically biases the intercept below the true asymptote, and the claimed non-monotonicity of ρ(2D)∞ could be an artifact. Please provide a quantitative test, for example a plot of the logarithmic local slope d ln(ρ∞−ρ)/d ln τ versus 1/τ for the smallest r̃ values, or a comparison of extrapolations using df = 1 and df = 2.
  2. [Discussion and Fig. 5C] The relation tan θmax ≈ 3 r̃ is presented as a quantitative result, but the paper does not report the number of simulation runs, the standard error of θmax, the range of r̃ over which the fit is performed, or the goodness of fit. Without these, the claimed linear law is not falsifiable. Please provide fit details and uncertainty, and state how θmax depends on the correlation cutoff (the paper notes peaks disappear when the range is increased).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Results, packing density paragraph] The citation to packing spheres inside cylinders contains an unresolved '[?]' placeholder (the text reads '[?,35,41]'). Please complete the reference.
  2. [Results, Eq. (1)] The variables z and φ are introduced, but it would help to define the domain of φ and the periodicity explicitly (0 ≤ φ < 2π) before the strip of width 2π is used.
  3. [Methods, 'data anaysis' heading] There is a typo in the subsection heading: 'data anaysis' should be 'data analysis'.
  4. [Results, Fig. 5B] The caption says '⟨n(r)n(r',θ)⟩ as a function of angle θ' but the text defines it as counting pairs aligned at angle θ within tolerance Δy; the precise normalization of the correlation function (e.g., whether it is divided by the strip area) is not given.
  5. [Results, Fig. 3C and 3D] Several experimental points at small r̃ fall outside the two-sigma band, and the authors attribute this to weak binding on highly curved wires. This is plausible, but the statement 'these results validate our understanding' is too strong for the r̃ ≲ 0.2 region; the subsequent paragraph already restricts the validation to r̃ ≳ 0.2, so consider moving the validation phrase to that regime or adding a quantitative model of the undersaturation effect.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the asymptotic coverage predictions come from an exact geometric mapping, independent simulations, and parameter-free experimental comparisons.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation reduces the 3D geometry of spheres on a cylinder to an effective 2D RSA problem through the exact angular-envelope relation in Eq. (1); this is a geometric transformation, not a fitted input. The asymptotic quantities ρ(2D)∞ and ρ(3D)∞ are then obtained from simulations that directly implement the RSA rule and from experiments that count adsorbed particles with no model parameters fitted to the data. The low-curvature limits are checked against externally established plane RSA values (ρ(2D)∞ ≈ 0.5471, ρ(3D)∞ ≈ 0.3647), which provides an independent benchmark rather than a self-referential one. The only notable assumption is the use of the asymptotic law ρ∞ − ρ(τ) ∼ τ^{−1/2} to extrapolate N∞ from finite-time simulations; this is a kinetic assumption that could bias the high-curvature results if the effective dimension were to cross over, but it is not circular because the extrapolation is applied to simulated deposition data rather than to quantities defined by the claimed conclusion. The empirical relation tan θmax ≈ 3r̃ in Fig. 5C is presented as an observed correlation, not used to derive the coverage claims. No load-bearing self-citation chain, uniqueness import, or ansatz-smuggling via citation appears in the text. The derivation is therefore self-contained, with the identified caveat being an extrapolation risk rather than a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation and experimental predictions depend on standard RSA modeling assumptions, the geometric mapping to 2D shapes, and extrapolation of N∞ from finite-time runs. The slope in the chiral-ordering law is the only numerical value fitted to the authors' own simulation data. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • slope of tanθmax versus r̃ = 3
    Reported as tanθmax≈3r̃ (Fig. 5C). This is a linear fit to simulation correlation data with no uncertainty or goodness-of-fit given.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Adsorbed spheres have centers on the cylinder of radius R+r and make point contact with the wire.
    Used to derive the angular envelope Eq. (1) and the 3D coverage formula Eq. (3); the authors note that real contacts have finite range and that this affects the high-curvature experiments.
  • domain assumption Adsorption is irreversible and sequential, with no desorption, diffusion, or interactions beyond hard-core exclusion.
    This is the RSA model. The experimental systems are selected to mimic it, but the paper acknowledges finite interaction range and kinetic effects cause deviations at high curvature.
  • domain assumption The 2D shape overlap condition in the φ-z plane is equivalent to 3D sphere overlap.
    The reduction to RSA of oblong shapes (Eq. (1)) is asserted from prior cylinder-packing studies [34-36]; it is the computational foundation of all simulated coverage values.
  • domain assumption Asymptotic kinetics follow ρ∞-ρ(τ)~τ^{-1/2} for all r̃, so N∞ can be extrapolated from finite-time simulations.
    The paper invokes the two-degree-of-freedom law (Eq. (4)) and states no crossover to 1D kinetics is observed, but this is checked empirically rather than proven.
  • domain assumption Very long cylinders with periodic boundary conditions eliminate end effects.
    Simulations use L large compared to R; experiments use ~30 μm segments with small diameter variation to approximate long-wire conditions.
  • domain assumption Packing densities of spheres inside cylinders map to packing on the cylinder surface for single-layer configurations.
    Used for the random-to-close-packed density comparison; relies on the cited cylinder-packing literature [35,41].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Random sequential adsorption of spheres on a cylinder." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNT6IEVG

@misc{pith2026190805350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Random sequential adsorption of spheres on a cylinder},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNT6IEVG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05350}
}
read the original abstract

Inspired by observations of beads packed on a thin string in such systems as sea-grapes and dental plaque, we study the random sequential adsorption of spheres on a cylinder. We determine the asymptotic fractional coverage of the cylinder as a function of the sole parameter in the problem, the ratio of the sphere radius to the cylinder radius (for a very long cylinder) using a combination of analysis and numerical simulations. Examining the asymptotic structures, we find weak chiral ordering on sufficiently small spatial scales. Experiments involving colloidal microspheres that can attach irreversibly to a silica wire via electrostatic forces or DNA hybridization allow us to verify our predictions for the asymptotic coverage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05350 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spheres-on-cylinder morphologies in (A) dental plaque “corncob” formations [26], (B) sea grapes, (C) peppercorn drupes, and (D) winterberries. 2/13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (A) Cartoon of spheres adsorbed on a wire. A sectioning plane indicated through the shade change is shown below, with r indicating the cylinder radius and R the particle radius, ρ indicating the radius of a particular cross-section through the particle, and ∆φ indicating the angle subtended by the particle cross-section at the center of the wire. (B) Two-dimensional representation in the φ − z plane of spheres of ra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (A) Schematic (left) and optical micrograph (right) of negatively charged particles binding irreversibly to a positively charged nanowire (B) Schematic (left) and optical micrograph (right) of DNA-coated particles binding to nanowire coated with complementary DNA strands. (C) Linear particle density λ versus scaled wire size r˜ = r/R and (D) 3D asymptotic density ρ (3D) ∞ versus scaled wire size r˜ = r/R from simula… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Longtime (asymptotic) coverage ρ (2D) ∞ versus scaled wire size r˜ = r/R (Eq. (3)) from simulation. The dashed black line at 0.5471 indicates the longtime coverage for the random adsorption of discs on the plane (that is, in the limit r˜ → ∞). chiral order emerges on s…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (A) Two-dimensional representation in the φ − z plane of spheres of radius R = 20 adsorbing on a cylinder of radius r = 1 and length L = 1000. To compute the angular density-density correlation function, we fix a particle (shown in red), consider a strip of width ∆y al…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Evans, J. W. . Rev. Mod. Phys. 1993, 65, 1281-1329

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    Wang, J.-S.; Pandey, R. B. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 1773-1776

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Osberg, B.; Nuebler, J.; Gerland, U. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2015, 115, 088301

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    B.; Ogale, S

    Shelke, P. B.; Ogale, S. B.; Khandkar, M. D.; Limaye, A. V. Phys. Rev. E 2008, 77, 066111

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Adamczyk, Z.; Belouschek, P. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1991, 146, 123-136

    work page 1991

  6. [6]

    Tanemura, M.; Hasegawa, M. J. Theor. Biol. 1980, 82, 470-496

    work page 1980

  7. [7]

    P.; Glandt, E

    Thompson, A. P.; Glandt, E. D. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1991, 146, 63-68

    work page 1991

  8. [8]

    V.; Viot, P

    Talbot, J.; Tarjus, G.; Tassel, P. V.; Viot, P. Colloids and Surfaces A, 2000, 165, 287-324

    work page 2000

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Rosen,L.; Seaton,N.; Glandt,E. J. Chem. Phys. 1986, 85, 7359

    1986

  2. [10]

    Swendsen, R. H. Phys. Rev. A 1981, 24, 504?508

    1981

  3. [11]

    C.; Privman, V

    Bartelt, M. C.; Privman, V. J. Chem. Phys. 1990, 93, 6820? 6823

    1990

  4. [12]

    Renyi, A. Sel. Trans. Math. Stat. Prob 1963, 4, 203?218

    1963

  5. [13]

    Privman, V.; Wang, J.-S.; Nielaba, P. Phys. Rev. B 1991, 43, 3366-3372

    1991

  6. [14]

    Cie´ sla, M.; Barbasz, J. Phys. Rev. E 2014, 89, 022401

    2014

  7. [15]

    Tarjus, G.; Viot, P. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1991, 67, 1875

    1991

  8. [16]

    Viot, P.; Tarjus, G.; Ricci, S.; Talbot, J. J. Chem. Phys. 1992, 97, 5212-5218

    1992

  9. [17]

    L.; Pandey, R

    Becklehimer, J. L.; Pandey, R. B. J. Stat. Phys. 1994, 75, 765-771

    1994

  10. [18]

    Fan, Y.; Percus, J. J. Stat. Phys. 1992, 66, 263-271

    1992

  11. [19]

    Evans, J.; Nord, R. J. Stat. Phys. 1992, 69, 151-162

    1992

  12. [20]

    J.; Ziff, R

    Brosilow, B. J.; Ziff, R. M.; Vigil, R. D. Phys. Rev. A 1991, 43, 631-638

    1991

  13. [21]

    Cie´ sla, M.; Barbasz, J. . Phys. Rev. E 2014, 90, 022402

    2014

  14. [22]

    Suh, S.; Jung, B.; Park, Y.; Chihaia, V.; Parvulescu, V.; Gartner, M. Bull. Kor. Chem. Soc. 2008, 29, 873

    2008

  15. [23]

    Cie´ sla,M.;Barbasz,J. J. Chem. Phys. 2012, 137, 044706

    2012

  16. [24]

    Physica A 2007, 377, 102-114

    Danwanichakul, P.; Charinpanitkul, T. Physica A 2007, 377, 102-114. 12/13

    2007

  17. [25]

    J.; Hayes-Cameron, L

    Manton, D. J.; Hayes-Cameron, L. In Handbook of Pediatric Dentistry (Fourth Edition), fourth edition ed.; Cameron, A. C., Widmer, R. P., Eds.; Mosby, 2013; pp 47–62

    2013

  18. [26]

    Essential microbiology for dentistry, 2006, 255-265

    Lakshman, S. Essential microbiology for dentistry, 2006, 255-265

    2006

  19. [27]

    Mughal, A., and Weaire, D., 2017, Phys. Rev. E, 95(2), 022401

    2017

  20. [28]

    L.; Rakesh, L.; Tomalia, D

    Mansfield, M. L.; Rakesh, L.; Tomalia, D. A. J. Chem. Phys. 1996, 105, 3245-3249

    1996

  21. [29]

    R.; Holmes-Cerfon, M

    Chen, E. R.; Holmes-Cerfon, M. J. Nonlin. Sci. 2017, 27, 1743-1787

    2017

  22. [30]

    B.; Holmes-Cerfon, M

    Schade, N. B.; Holmes-Cerfon, M. C.; Chen, E. R.; Aronzon, D.;Collins, J. W.; Fan, J. A.; Capasso, F.; Manoharan, V. N. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013, 110, 148303

    2013

  23. [31]

    Feder, J.; Giaever, I. J. Colloid and Interface Sci. 1980, 78, 144-154

    1980

  24. [32]

    Colloids and Surfaces A, 2016, 499, 1-9

    Sadowska, M.; Adamczyk, Z.; Ocwieja, M.; Nattich-Rak, M. Colloids and Surfaces A, 2016, 499, 1-9

    2016

  25. [33]

    Langmuir 2014, 30, 692-699

    Sadowska, M.; Adamczyk, Z.; Nattich-Rak, M. Langmuir 2014, 30, 692-699

    2014

  26. [34]

    T., Gross, M., and Okuyama, H

    Pickett, G. T., Gross, M., and Okuyama, H. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2000, 85(17), 3652

    2000

  27. [35]

    K., Weaire, D., and Hutzler, S

    Mughal, A., Chan, H. K., Weaire, D., and Hutzler, S. T., 2012, Phys. Rev. E, 85(5), 051305

    2012

  28. [36]

    K., 2011

    Chan, H. K., 2011. Phys. Rev. E, 84(5), 050302

    2011

  29. [37]

    and Ziff, R.M., 2018

    Cie´ sla, M. and Ziff, R.M., 2018. J. Stat. Mech.: Theory and Experiment, 2018(4), p.043302

    2018

  30. [38]

    and Jazssang, T., 1986

    Hinrichsen, E.L., Feder, J. and Jazssang, T., 1986. J. Stat Phys., 44(5-6), pp.793-827

    1986

  31. [39]

    and Jullien, R., 1992

    Meakin, P. and Jullien, R., 1992. Physica A: Stat. Mech. Appl., 187(3-4), pp.475-488

    1992

  32. [40]

    Baule, A. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2017, 119(2), p.028003

    2017

  33. [41]

    E., and Charbonneau, P., 2016, Soft matter, 12(9), 2505-2514

    Fu, L., Steinhardt, W., Zhao, H., Socolar, J. E., and Charbonneau, P., 2016, Soft matter, 12(9), 2505-2514

    2016

  34. [42]

    Vigil,R.D.; Ziff,R.M. J. Chem. Phys. 1990, 93, 8270? 8272

    1990

  35. [43]

    O˘ guz, E.C., Messina, R., and L¨ owen, H., 2011, EPL 94(2)

    2011

  36. [44]

    Fu, L., Bian, C., Shields, C.W., Cruz, D.F., L´ opez, G.P., and Charbonneau, P., 2017, Soft matter, 13(18)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Tong, L.; Mazur, E. J. Non-Crystalline Solids 2008, 354, 1240–1244

    2008

  38. [46]

    Chandradoss, S.D.; Haagsma, A.C.; Lee, Y.K.; Hwang, J.H.; Nam, J.M.; Joo, C. J. Vis. Exp. 2014, 86, e50549

    2014

  39. [47]

    S.; Wang, Y.; Pine, D

    Oh, J. S.; Wang, Y.; Pine, D. J.; Yi, G.-R. Chem. Mater. 2015, 27, 8337-8344. 13/13

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.