Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 13 references

The High-redshift Blazar MG3 J163554+3629: Physical Properties and the Enigma of Its Unexpected Supermassive Black Hole Growth

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 MG3 J163554+3629, a blazar at redshift 3.65, hosts a ~10^9-solar-mass black hole that standard Eddington-limited accretion cannot grow in time.

desk verdict Competent SED modeling, but the growth-tension headline is an artifact of a misapplied growth equation; the SED parameters are worth a look, the enigma is not. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13593 v1 pith:CEZ4LS6Y submitted 2025-05-19 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Jose Maria Sanchez Zaballa , Eugenio Bottacini , Andrea Tramacere This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords blazarflat-spectrumradioquasarsupermassiveblackholegrowthspectralenergydistributionone-zoneleptonicmodelEddington-limitedaccretionhigh-redshiftAGNMG3J163554+3629
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

By modeling the radio-to-gamma-ray spectrum of the blazar MG3 J163554+3629 at redshift 3.65, the paper derives a central black hole of about $1.1\times10^9$ solar masses, an accretion efficiency of $\eta\approx0.083$, and a modest magnetic field, with the emitting region sitting between the broad-line region and the dust torus. The authors then apply an exponential Eddington-limited growth law and find that a ~$10^6$ solar-mass seed formed at $z\approx30$ would not have had enough time to reach this mass by $z=3.65$. They conclude that standard Eddington-limited accretion is insufficient to build this black hole, and that faster growth through super-Eddington episodes or jet-assisted accretion is needed. The result matters because high-redshift blazars are rare probes of how supermassive black holes assembled in the first billion years of the universe.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the one-zone leptonic jet model, which fixes the black hole mass, disk luminosity, magnetic field, and dissipation distance by fitting the synchrotron, SSC, and external-Compton components to the radio-to-gamma-ray data, together with the exponential Eddington-limited growth law used in the paper. The growth law, $M_{\rm BH}(t_0)=M_{\rm BH}(t)\,\exp\!\left[-\eta_{\rm Edd}\,\frac{1-\eta}{\eta}\,\frac{t-t_0}{\tau_{\rm acc}}\right]$ with the characteristic timescale $\tau_{\rm acc}\approx0.45$ Gyr, is what converts the fitted mass and efficiency into a backward extrapolation to $z\approx30$. The dissipation distance also matters: it places the emission outside the broad-line region but inside the dust torus, which sets which seed photon field dominates the inverse-Compton radiation and anchors the energetics.

What would settle it

Integrate $dM/dt = (1-\eta)L_{\rm Edd}/(\eta c^2)$ from a $10^6\,M_\odot$ seed at $z\approx30$ to $z=3.65$ using the paper's $\eta=0.083$, $\tau_{\rm acc}\approx0.45$ Gyr, and an Eddington ratio of one; if the final mass is at least the inferred $1.1\times10^9\,M_\odot$, then the claimed inconsistency with Eddington-limited growth does not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the SED modeling of MG3 J163554+3629 yields a supermassive black hole of $M_{\rm BH} = 1.1^{+0.2}_{-0.1}\times10^9\,M_\odot$ with a low accretion efficiency $\eta=0.083$, and that an Eddington-limited growth history from a seed mass of ~$10^6\,M_\odot$ at $z\approx30$ cannot reach this mass by $z=3.65$. Because the low efficiency is also supported by jet-power energetics, with only $\eta<0.15$ keeping the jet power an order of magnitude above the disk luminosity in line with blazar population studies, the authors take the parameter set as robust. The growth calculation then becomes the basis for arguing that the black hole's existence requires non-standard growth: either frequent super-Eddington accretion episodes or a jet that converts some accretion energy into mechanical power, effectively raising the accretion rate. The claim is thus an enigma argument: a well-constrained single object whose inferred properties conflict with the standard growth timeline.

Load-bearing premise

The growth conclusion rests on the exponential Eddington-limited growth law used in the paper being the correct and correctly evaluated description of the black hole's accretion; if that law or its evaluation is wrong, the claimed lack of time disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the growth argument holds, high-redshift blazars like MG3 J163554+3629 are direct evidence that some supermassive black holes assembled faster than Eddington-limited accretion allows.
  • The low accretion efficiency $\eta\approx0.083$, combined with the requirement of a spinning black hole to launch the jet, implies that a large share of accretion energy must flow into mechanical jet power rather than radiation.
  • The dissipation region between the BLR and dust torus makes the infrared torus photons the dominant external Compton seed field, a configuration that should be common in high-redshift FSRQs.
  • Explaining this object requires either frequent super-Eddington accretion episodes or jet-assisted mass growth, both of which are testable via population studies of $z>3$ quasars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A quick numerical check, integrating the standard growth equation $dM/dt=(1-\eta)L_{\rm Edd}/(\eta c^2)$ with the paper's $\eta=0.083$, would settle whether the 'no time' conclusion depends on the precise form of the growth law; this is a one-line verification any reader can run.
  • The same SED-fitting pipeline applied to a sample of $z>3$ FSRQs could turn this single-object enigma into a statistical constraint on seed masses and accretion modes in the early universe.
  • If jet-assisted growth is real, it predicts that high-redshift blazars, where jets are powerful, should systematically show lower radiative efficiencies than their low-redshift counterparts, a correlation that could be searched for in existing catalogs.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multiwavelength SED modeling study of the z=3.65 flat-spectrum radio quasar MG3 J163554+3629 using a one-zone leptonic model implemented with JetSeT. From the SED fit and an MCMC uncertainty analysis, the authors report a black hole mass of about 1.1e9 Msun, a low magnetic field B~0.066 G, a dissipation region outside the BLR but inside the dust torus, an accretion disk luminosity of about 1.4e46 erg/s, and a low accretion efficiency eta=0.083. By varying the assumed accretion efficiency and computing jet power components, the authors argue that efficiencies below 0.15 are favored. The final section applies an exponential Eddington-limited growth model to conclude that the SMBH did not have enough time to grow from a ~1e6 Msun seed at z~30 to ~1e9 Msun by z=3.65, and that super-Eddington or jet-assisted growth is therefore required.

Significance. If the SED modeling results are correct, the paper provides a useful data point for the physical properties of a rare high-redshift FSRQ, including the location of the gamma-ray emission region and a low inferred accretion efficiency. The use of publicly available fitting code, an MCMC treatment with explicit tables of parameters, and a multi-instrument dataset are strengths. The claimed growth-enigma conclusion, however, is not supported by the equations and numbers presented in the manuscript. Because that conclusion is the headline result, the paper in its current form cannot be accepted as is.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (3), Figure 4] Equation (3) is the standard Eddington-limited growth solution with the factor (1-eta)/eta in the exponent, so the issue is not the algebraic sign but the value assigned to eta_Edd. With eta=0.083, tau_acc about 0.39 Gyr from Eq. (4) with mu_e=8/7, and an elapsed time from z~30 to z=3.65 of roughly 1.6 Gyr, the exponent for eta_Edd=1 is about 45, corresponding to a growth factor e^45; a 1e6 Msun seed would already exceed 1e9 Msun only about 0.24 Gyr after z~30. The statement in the abstract and in §4.4 that the SMBH 'did not have time enough' is therefore numerically false if 'Eddington-limited' is used in its standard sense of L=L_Edd. If, instead, the calculation used eta_Edd=L_disk/L_Edd~0.1, that choice must be stated explicitly, and the process should not be described as Eddington-limited; the conclusion would then rest on the additional, unstated assumption that the Eddington ratio remained at its current value for the entire growth history. As written, the central growth claim is ambiguous and unsupported.
  2. [§4.2, Table 5, Figure 3] The text states that for eta<0.15 the total jet power is approximately one order of magnitude larger than L_disk and that this agrees with the population studies cited. Table 5 gives P_jet/L_disk = 3.4, 2.7, 1.6, and 1.1 for eta=0.057, 0.083, 0.100, and 0.150, respectively. These ratios are factors of 3-10 lower than the 'one order of magnitude' claim and fall below the 10-100 range quoted from Celotti & Ghisellini (2008). The energetics argument as presented therefore does not support the preference for eta<0.15; the numerical comparison with the cited scaling relations must be redone.
  3. [§3 and Table 4] The nominal uncertainty quoted for L_disk, (1.381±0.003)e46 erg/s, is only the Monte Carlo integration error of the multi-temperature blackbody fit. The disk luminosity is derived from a small number of optical/IR photometric points (Gaia and WISE) with no correction for possible host-galaxy contamination or systematics in the assumed disk model; the total systematic uncertainty is much larger than 0.3%. Because L_disk enters L_Edd, eta, MBH, and the BLR and dust-torus radii, the reported 2-sigma MCMC intervals in Table 4 should be interpreted as conditional on the disk model, and a systematic error budget should be provided.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.6 and §4.1] The photon spectral index is reported as Gamma=2.67 in §2.6 but as 2.81 in §4.1; this inconsistency should be resolved.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The notation eta_Edd for the ratio L_acc/L_Edd is confusing because eta already denotes the accretion efficiency; using lambda_Edd or f_Edd would improve clarity, and the numerical value adopted in the growth calculation should be stated.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The caption says 'corresponding to t = 1.722 Gyr' but the text describes growth between z~30 and z=3.65; it should specify whether 1.722 Gyr is the total age at z=3.65 or the elapsed time, because the exponent in Eq. (3) depends on this choice.
  4. [References] Albareti et al. (2017) and Wright et al. (2010) appear twice in the reference list.
  5. [§4.2 and Table 4] The text says the MCMC parameters are given within 2-sigma confidence intervals, but Table 4 reports 16th/50th/84th percentiles, which are 1-sigma intervals; the wording should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SED is fitted to observables, uncertainties are MCMC-derived, and the SMBH-growth conclusion applies an external evolution equation to those fitted values rather than fitting to the conclusion.

full rationale

Every load-bearing numerical input in the modeling chain—the radio-to-gamma-ray fluxes, the optical/IR disk blackbody, and the Fermi and XMM spectra—is an external observable, and the JetSeT fit parameters (R, B, Γ, MBH, η, Ldisk, Pjet) are outputs of a publicly available code, not quantities defined in terms of the paper's conclusions. The MCMC analysis in §4.2 propagates data uncertainties rather than imposing the final mass or efficiency. The low-η preference in §4.2 is argued by comparing model-derived Pjet and Ldisk with independent scaling relations (Celotti & Ghisellini 2008; Nemmen et al. 2012), so it is an external consistency test, not a circular construction. The growth argument in §4.3 uses the Shapiro (2005) Eddington-limited equation with the fitted MBH and η; the conclusion that z≈30 seed masses cannot yield MBH≈1.1e9 M_sun by z=3.65 is not used to set any fitted parameter, and the equation is cited from external literature rather than being rederived from the paper's assumptions. JetSeT is co-authored by A. Tramacere, but the code is publicly available and widely used, so this self-citation is not load-bearing support for a claim that is unverified elsewhere. The possible factor error in Eq. (3) flagged in the review is a mathematical-correctness issue; even if the conclusion is numerically wrong, the derivation is not circular because the equation is independent of the fitted values. No exhibited step reduces the claim to its inputs by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on a standard one-zone SED model with many fitted parameters and on assumed scaling laws for BLR/DT geometry and reprocessing fractions. No new particles or forces are introduced. The largest concern is the growth model in §4.3: the paper's Eq. (3) inverts the efficiency ratio relative to the standard Salpeter solution, which is the premise that produces the 'enigma'.

free parameters (11)
  • B (magnetic field) = 6.56e-2 G (best-fit); 6.69e-2 G MCMC median
    Controls the synchrotron peak in the one-zone SED model; fitted to the data.
  • R (emission region radius) = 0.79e17 cm
    Radius of the spherical emitting blob in the JetSeT model; fitted.
  • Rdiss (dissipation distance) = 1.5e18 cm
    Distance of the emission region from the SMBH; constrained by EC/BLR/DT geometry; fitted.
  • Gamma (bulk Lorentz factor) = 19
    Jet bulk Lorentz factor; fitted.
  • theta (viewing angle) = 3 deg
    Angle between the jet axis and the line of sight; fitted.
  • gamma_min, gamma_break, gamma_max = 1.0, 0.94e3, 2.0e4
    Electron Lorentz factors in the broken power-law injection; fitted.
  • p, p1 (electron spectral indices) = 1.45, 3.58
    Slopes of the injected electron energy distribution; fitted.
  • N (electron normalization) = 9.21e2 cm^-3
    Normalization of the electron distribution; fitted.
  • MBH (black hole mass) = 1.1e9 Msun
    Inferred from SED modeling and the disk luminosity; one of the MCMC parameters.
  • L_disk (accretion disk luminosity) = 1.41e46 erg/s (statistical fit)
    Derived from fitting a multi-temperature blackbody to optical/IR data; the quoted ±0.003e46 uncertainty ignores systematics.
  • eta (accretion efficiency) = 0.083
    Chosen from a grid (0.057 to 0.300); favored by an energetics argument, not directly sampled in the MCMC. The energetics support is weaker than stated because Pjet/Ldisk is about 2-3, not ~10.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The SED is produced by a one-zone spherical blob with a broken power-law electron distribution (Eq. 1).
    Standard blazar SED modeling assumption; used throughout §3 and §4.
  • domain assumption BLR radius follows R_BLR=3e17 (L_disk,46)^0.5 cm and DT radius R_DT=2e19 (L_disk,46)^0.5 cm, each reprocessing 10% of L_disk.
    From Kaspi et al. (2007) and Blazejowski et al. (2000); enters EC component modeling and Rdiss inference.
  • domain assumption EBL attenuation follows Franceschini et al. (2008).
    Used for the high-energy attenuation correction in §3.
  • domain assumption Galactic extinction follows Cardelli et al. (1989) with R_V=3.1 and A_V=0.055.
    Used to correct optical/IR data in §3.
  • domain assumption The accretion disk radiates as a multi-temperature blackbody between 1e3 and 1e4 K.
    Used to fit L_disk from optical/IR data in §3.
  • domain assumption Eddington-limited growth follows the exponential solution in Shapiro (2005), Eq. (3).
    The paper's Eq. (3) inverts the efficiency ratio; the standard solution has (1-eta)/eta in the exponent, not eta/(1-eta). This assumption is the load-bearing premise for the growth 'enigma'.
  • standard math Flat ΛCDM cosmology with H0=67.8 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m=0.307, Omega_Lambda=0.693.
    Used for distances and cosmic ages in §1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The High-redshift Blazar MG3 J163554+3629: Physical Properties and the Enigma of Its Unexpected Supermassive Black Hole Growth." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CEZ4LS6Y

@misc{pith2026250513593,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The High-redshift Blazar MG3 J163554+3629: Physical Properties and the Enigma of Its Unexpected Supermassive Black Hole Growth},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CEZ4LS6Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13593}
}
read the original abstract

There is general consensus that active galactic nuclei (AGNs) derive their radiating power from a supermassive black hole (SMBH) that accretes matter. Yet, their precise powering mechanisms and the resulting growth of the SMBH are poorly understood, especially for AGNs at high redshift. Blazars are AGNs pointing their jet toward the observer, thus being detectable from radio through gamma rays at high redshift due to Doppler boosting. The blazar MG3 J163554+3629 is located at redshift z=3.65 and it is a flat spectrum radio quasar (FSRQ). In this work, we show the results of the modeling of its spectral energy distribution (SED) from radio to gamma rays with a one-zone leptonic model. We estimate the uncertainties through a Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach. As a result, we infer the black hole mass M_BH = 1.1(+0.2,-0.1) x 10^9 Msun and a modest magnetic field of B = 6.56(+0.13,-0.09) x 10^-2 G in line with the Compton dominance observed in high-redshift FSRQs. The emitting region is outside the broad line region but within the region of the dust torus radius. The rather small accretion efficiency of eta=0.083 is not solely inferred through the SED modeling but also through the energetics. An evolution study suggests that in an Eddington-limited accretion process the SMBH did not have time enough to grow from an initial seed mass of ~10^6 Msun at z~30 into a mass of M_BH ~ 10^9 Msun at z=3.65. Faster mass growth might be obtained in a super-Eddington process throughout frequent episodes. Alternative scenarios propose that the existence of the jet itself can facilitate a more rapid growth.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13593 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Observer-frame SED models for different accretion efficiencies, η=0.083 being the best-fit result. Higher accretion efficiencies (and thus higher disk luminosities) impact the BLR radii increasing their sizes. For every accretion efficiency, the dissipating region is beyond the BLR but within the radius of the DT. different efficiencies we compute the power carried by the jet in different forms as defined above. The… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pjet as function of Ldisk for the set of efficiencies η. The dashed gray line represents the equation Pjet=Ldisk. Accretion disk efficiencies of η<0.15 are favored over higher values (see text for discussion) thereby supporting the SED best-fit model. Measurements of accretion efficiencies and masses of SMBHs in the early Universe can be constraining for the evolution and origin of the seed black holes (Inayoshi et … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MBH evolution for MG3 J163554+3629 since redshift z ≈ 30 to z ≈ 3.65 (corresponding to t = 1.722 Gyr). Colored lines represent the evolution for different values of accretion efficiency η. The shaded blue region correspond to the expected mass ranges direct collapse bl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [80]

    H., et al

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe239 Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., et al. 2023, arXiv:2307.12546. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546 Bambi, C., Brenneman, L. W., Dauser, T., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217,

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.12546 2023

  2. [107]

    2021, ApJ, 909,

    doi:10.1086/317791 Ba˜nados, E., Mazzucchelli, C., Momjian, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909,

    doi:10.1086/317791 2021

  3. [117]

    Condon, J

    doi:10.1086/511969 12 S anchez Zaballa, J.M., Bottacini, E., Tramacere, A. Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115,

    doi:10.1086/511969 1998

  4. [146]

    2012, PASP, 124, 1208

    doi:10.1086/507420 Sawicki, M. 2012, PASP, 124, 1208. doi:10.1086/668636 Scheuer, P. A. G. 1974, MNRAS, 166, 513. doi:10.1093/mnras/166.3.513 Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500,

    work page doi:10.1086/507420 2012

  5. [203]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

    doi:10.1086/511005 Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455 Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 Jarrett, T. H., Cohen, M., Masci, F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, 112. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/112 Jolley, E. J. D. & Kuncic, Z. 2008, ApJ, 676, 3...

    arXiv 2020

  6. [216]

    J., Carswell, R

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19024.x Weymann, R. J., Carswell, R. F., & Smith, M. G. 1981, ARA&A, 19, 41. doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.19.090181.000353 White, R. L. & Becker, R. H. 1992, ApJS, 79, 331. doi:10.1086/191656 Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P...

    arXiv 2011

  7. [376]

    2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 163

    doi:10.1038/nature13856 Ghisellini, G. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 163. doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2015.03.002 Gregory, P. C. & Condon, J. J. 1991, ApJS, 75, 1011. doi:10.1086/191559 Griffith, M., Langston, G., Heflin, M., et al. 1990, ApJS, 74, 129. doi:10.1086/191495 Helmboldt, J. F., Taylor, G. B., Tremblay, S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658,

    doi:10.1038/nature13856 2015

  8. [433]

    2008, A&A, 487,

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x Franceschini, A., Rodighiero, G., & Vaccari, M. 2008, A&A, 487,

    arXiv 1998

Show all 13 references
  1. [525]

    doi:10.1086/305772 Shapiro, S. L. 2005, ApJ, 620, 59. doi:10.1086/427065 Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C., & Rees, M. J. 1994, ApJ, 421, 153. doi:10.1086/173633 Stecker, F. W., de Jager, O. C., & Salamon, M. H. 1992, ApJL, 390, L49. doi:10.1086/186369 Su, K.-Y ., Bryan, G. L., Haim...

    2005 doi

  2. [837]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809691 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 Gaia Collaboration, V...

    2016

  3. [1079]

    2011, MNRAS, 416,

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12589.x V olonteri, M., Haardt, F., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416,

    2007

  4. [1693]

    H., Fields, B

    doi:10.1086/300337 Cyburt, R. H., Fields, B. D., & Olive, K. A. 2003, Physics Letters B, 567, 227. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.06.026 Dermer, C. D., Schlickeiser, R., & Mastichiadis, A. 1992, A&A, 256, L27 Finke, J. 2016, arXiv:1602.05965. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1602.05965 Fossati...

    2003 doi arXiv

  5. [4258]

    2024, arXiv:2409.12250

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad252 Su, K.-Y ., Bryan, G., & Haiman, Z. 2024, arXiv:2409.12250. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.12250 Tanaka, T. & Haiman, Z. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1798. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1798 Thorne, K. S. 1974, ApJ, 191, 507. doi:10.1086/152991 Tramacere, A., Giommi, P., P...

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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