Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

AutoGraph: A Knowledge-Graph Framework for Modeling Interface Interaction and Automating Procedure Execution in Digital Nuclear Control Rooms

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A knowledge graph of interface elements lets software execute nuclear control-room procedures automatically and faster than human operators.

desk verdict A concrete click-automation prototype for parameter search in a nuclear simulator, but the 'fully automated execution' claim overreaches because no component is shown to read or verify displayed values. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18727 v1 pith:DWRGEOHJ submitted 2025-05-26 cs.HC cs.SE

Xingyu Xiao , Jiejuan Tong , Jun Sun , Zhe Sui , Jingang Liang , Hongru Zhao , Jun Zhao , Haitao Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.SE
keywords KnowledgeGraphDigitalControlRoomProcedureAutomationHumanReliabilityAnalysisNuclearPowerPlantHuman-SystemInterfaceMulti-actionStepParameterSearch
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 tries to establish that the gap between written nuclear procedures and the screens operators click on can be closed with a knowledge graph of interface elements, and that once closed, procedures can be executed automatically. It argues that such a graph lets a computer navigate multiple interface layers, perform parameter checks, and do so faster than human operators in simulator tests. The motivation is human error: roughly half of reportable U.S. nuclear events are attributed to human factors, and current computer-based procedures lack the semantic hooks needed to automate complex multi-action steps. If the claim holds, the same graph can flag cognitively demanding steps, feed timing data into human reliability models, and compare operator behavior against an expected interaction path.

What carries the argument

The interface element knowledge graph (IE-KG). It is a directed labeled graph $G = (V, E)$, where each node is an interactive GUI element carrying a human-readable name and two-dimensional screen coordinates, and each edge encodes a hierarchy such as a system panel containing a specific component. It is the load-bearing representation: procedure-to-interface mapping searches the graph, multi-action steps are recognized from mapped path length, and the execution engine replays node-to-node navigation as simulated clicks. A tracking module supplies the element positions and interaction traces from which the graph is built.

What would settle it

Give AutoGraph a digital control-room simulator it has never been configured for, build the knowledge graph automatically from raw screen content or an accessibility dump rather than from curated tracker data, and run a parameter-check procedure: if the system cannot locate the target elements or execute the path without manual graph edits, the automation claim is refuted. A sharper challenge is a procedure with conditional branching, where the current path search has no explicit decision logic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

AutoGraph's central claim is that a machine-readable interface element knowledge graph — a directed graph whose nodes are labeled, coordinate-bearing interface elements and whose edges encode parent-child nesting — makes procedural text executable in a digital control room. The paper reports that in all five tested scenarios on a full-scope simulator, automated execution completed every parameter-check task faster than human operators did, with a nonparametric rank-sum test giving $p < 0.001$, and that any mapped path longer than one step can be classified as a multi-action step with 100% accuracy. It further claims the framework integrates with existing dynamic human reliability analysis and real-time decision support systems by automatically decomposing high-level tasks into concrete interface-linked operations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a hand-built, partial interface-element knowledge graph can stand in for the full interface; if a new control room needs manual graph construction for every panel, the claimed automatic mapping and scalability do not yet follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Textual procedures can be turned into executable click-level paths without modifying the underlying simulator, so parameter checks and similar fixed tasks can run unattended.
  • Multi-action steps are automatically identifiable from mapped path length, giving human reliability analysts a concrete way to flag cognitively demanding procedure segments.
  • The framework can feed task-completion times into cognitive operator models, and one demonstrated integration yields an estimated error probability of $8.2 \times 10^{-3}$ for a specific step.
  • Integrated with a diagnostic decision support system, AutoGraph can provide a reference path against which real operator actions are compared, supporting data collection for dynamic human reliability analysis.
  • Because a direct timing comparison shows automation faster in every tested scenario, the framework offers a repeatable baseline for evaluating procedure efficiency.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If graph construction were automated from accessibility trees or screen captures, the same machinery could transfer to other digital control rooms or safety-critical GUIs; the paper's manual, partial graph is the current bottleneck.
  • The mapped shortest paths suggest a real-time operator-monitoring oracle: any deviation from the expected path could be flagged immediately, extending the paper's retrospective risk-analysis integration into live error detection.
  • Procedure-design review could be inverted: procedures whose mapped paths are deep or long would empirically be the ones worth simplifying, and the framework quantifies that directly.
  • Cognitive-simulation integration points toward generating synthetic operator timing data at scale, which could supplement scarce real incident data for training data-driven human reliability models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes AutoGraph, a layered framework for modeling and automating procedure execution on digital nuclear control room interfaces. It combines an interaction tracker (HTRPM), a manually constructed Interface Element Knowledge Graph (IE-KG), a procedure-to-path mapping that labels multi-node paths as multi-action steps, and an execution engine that replays click sequences. The evaluation uses six graduate students performing five parameter-check tasks in an HTGRSim full-scope simulator; the paper reports that automated execution was faster in all scenarios (Mann-Whitney U p<0.001) and illustrates integration with the COGMIF dynamic HRA framework and the DRIF decision-support framework.

Significance. If the framework were to achieve the claimed automatic mapping and full verification, it would be a useful contribution to procedure automation and human reliability analysis. Credit is due for the concrete implementation on a real simulator, the direct human-automation timing comparison, and the explicit integration demonstrations with ACT-R/COGMIF. However, the central claims go beyond the current evidence: the knowledge graph is hand-built, the multi-action detection accuracy is definitional, and the automated system does not perform the verification step that the tested procedures require. The paper is a promising proof-of-concept but not a validated demonstration of fully automated procedure execution.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.3, 3.4] The claim of 'automatic mapping from textual procedures to executable interface paths' is not supported by the described pipeline. Section 3.3 states that the IE-KG is manually constructed from tracker data, and Section 3.4 says the system 'searches within the constructed IE-KG' for a path, without specifying any algorithm that resolves arbitrary procedure text to graph nodes. As written, mapping is a lookup in a hand-authored index over a partial set of panels (Section 4.1), so the scalability and automation claims are not established. To support the claim, the paper should either provide the mapping algorithm and report its performance on procedures not used in KG construction, or explicitly restrict the contribution to a manually curated demonstration.
  2. [4.2] The '100%' multi-action detection accuracy is a tautology, not a measured result. The text defines a multi-action step as one whose mapped path contains multiple sequential interface nodes and then reports that this classification achieves 100% accuracy; the ground truth and the detection rule are identical by construction. The claim that this constitutes 'dynamic detection of human error traps' therefore needs independent validation, for example human annotation of step complexity, eye-tracking or workload data, or comparison with an existing HRA taxonomy.
  3. [4.3, 5.1] The time comparison does not cover the full procedure content. The tasks in Table 1 are verification tasks of the form 'Check whether the value of parameter ... is X', but Section 4.3 describes the execution module only as reproducing navigation and interaction sequences and collecting parameter values. No component is described that reads the displayed value, compares it to the expected value, or flags a mismatch. Consequently, the comparison in Section 5.1 contrasts humans who navigate, read, and verify against an automation that may only navigate; the reported time advantage is therefore not evidence for the 'fully automated execution' claim. The paper should either implement and evaluate the verification step or restate the claim as automated navigation/parameter retrieval.
  4. [5.1] The statistical support is thinner than presented. The evaluation uses six graduate students and five scenarios with no reported error bars, effect sizes, or per-scenario distributions; the Mann-Whitney U p-value on this sample, combined with the all-points-below the y=x line, is consistent with a scripted macro being faster than manual navigation but does not establish performance on realistic operator tasks. Please report the full distributions, effect sizes, and the amount of human supervision or setup time required by the automated runs, and treat the result as a demonstration rather than a general claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3.1-3.5] Phase numbering is inconsistent: Section 3.1 describes Phase I as IE-KG construction and Phase II as semantic matching, while Sections 3.2-3.5 label tracker development as Phase I and IE-KG construction as Phase II.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract lists contributions (3) and (4) as the same capability ('automatic mapping from textual procedures to executable interface paths' and 'an execution engine that maps textual procedures to executable interface paths'); reword to distinguish mapping from execution.
  3. [Author contribution] The Author contribution statement names Peng Chen, Shunshun Liu, and Qianqian Jia, none of whom appear in the author list; clarify the authorship/acknowledgment arrangement.
  4. [Figures] Several figure references are loose: Section 4.2 and Section 4.3 refer to 'Figure 6' for the navigation path and demo scenarios, but the numbering in the text does not align with the captioned figures 1-9; please check all cross-references.
  5. [5.2, 5.3] The COGMIF/DRIF integration results in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 should be labeled as illustrative demonstrations; the single reported T_reqd and HEP value has no validation against observed operator performance.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Main time-efficiency comparison is externally grounded; multi-action 'detection' and path 'consistency' are circular by construction, but not load-bearing for the central result.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2, 'Dynamic Detection of Multi-Action Human Error Traps']
    "If the mapped path contains multiple sequential actions, the step can be unequivocally classified as a multi-action step. This classification is highly straightforward and does not typically require additional validation, with detection accuracy reaching 100%."

    A 'multi-action step' is defined as any path containing multiple sequential nodes in the IE-KG, and detection is just reading off path length from the manually built graph. The claimed 100% detection accuracy is therefore true by definition, not an empirically measured result; no independent ground-truth labeling or algorithm is tested.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3 and Section 4.2 (path validation)]
    "The IE-KG is manually constructed based on the tracker data described in Section 3.2 and HTRPM simulator interface. ... The identified path corresponds directly to the operator’s actual interaction sequence, aligning with both the collected interface data and real-world operational behavior."

    The IE-KG is built from the same tracker data that is later used to say an identified path 'aligns with collected interface data'. Since the path is obtained by searching a graph manually constructed from those data, the alignment is guaranteed by construction and cannot serve as independent validation of the mapping or of multi-action recognition.

full rationale

The central result — that AutoGraph's automated execution is faster than human operators (Section 5.1) — rests on an external benchmark: task completion times of six human participants recorded from simulator sessions, compared with the framework's own execution times. That comparison is not derived from AutoGraph's assumptions and is not circular. The manually constructed IE-KG limits scalability claims but is a stated limitation, not a circular derivation. The two flagged steps are definitional/validation-by-construction claims about multi-action classification and path consistency; they do not drive the time-efficiency result. The COGMIF and DRIF integrations cite prior work by the same authors but are illustrative extensibility demonstrations, not load-bearing evidence for the main automation claim. Overall circularity is therefore minor (score 2).

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The framework's automation capability depends on a manually constructed, partial IE-KG and on the assumption that the simulator represents real control room operations. The ACT-R demonstration introduces unspecified timing parameters. No numeric free parameters are needed for the primary time comparison.

free parameters (1)
  • ACT-R timing parameters (Fitts' Law coefficients, production timings) = unspecified
    Section 5.2 uses an ACT-R model with Fitts' Law to predict T_reqd = 37.107s; the parameter values are not given, so the prediction cannot be independently reproduced.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The HTRPM full-scope simulator interface is representative of digital NPP control room HSIs.
    Stated implicitly through the evaluation design (Section 4.1); the generalizability of results to real control rooms depends on this.
  • domain assumption Semantic matching between procedure text and interface elements can be resolved (here manually).
    Section 3.4 searches the IE-KG for matches; no automated NLP matching is implemented, so the premise is that such matching is feasible.
  • ad hoc to paper Multi-action steps are defined as steps whose mapped path contains multiple sequential interface nodes.
    Section 4.2 defines the classification criterion; this is a definitional choice rather than an empirically validated measure of cognitive load.
invented entities (2)
  • Interface Element Knowledge Graph (IE-KG) independent evidence
    purpose: Structured representation of interactive elements with names, coordinates, and hierarchy, enabling path search and automation.
    Grounded in actual screen elements and tracker data, but only covers a manually selected subset of panels.
  • HTRPM tracker (tracker.exe) independent evidence
    purpose: Captures click, keyboard, coordinate, and timestamp data during operator interaction.
    A software tool; its outputs were used to populate the IE-KG, but the tool itself is not released.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AutoGraph: A Knowledge-Graph Framework for Modeling Interface Interaction and Automating Procedure Execution in Digital Nuclear Control Rooms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DWRGEOHJ

@misc{pith2026250618727,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AutoGraph: A Knowledge-Graph Framework for Modeling Interface Interaction and Automating Procedure Execution in Digital Nuclear Control Rooms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DWRGEOHJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18727}
}
read the original abstract

Digitalization in nuclear power plant (NPP) control rooms is reshaping how operators interact with procedures and interface elements. However, existing computer-based procedures (CBPs) often lack semantic integration with human-system interfaces (HSIs), limiting their capacity to support intelligent automation and increasing the risk of human error, particularly under dynamic or complex operating conditions. In this study, we present AutoGraph, a knowledge-graph-based framework designed to formalize and automate procedure execution in digitalized NPP environments.AutoGraph integrates (1) a proposed HTRPM tracking module to capture operator interactions and interface element locations; (2) an Interface Element Knowledge Graph (IE-KG) encoding spatial, semantic, and structural properties of HSIs; (3) automatic mapping from textual procedures to executable interface paths; and (4) an execution engine that maps textual procedures to executable interface paths. This enables the identification of cognitively demanding multi-action steps and supports fully automated execution with minimal operator input. We validate the framework through representative control room scenarios, demonstrating significant reductions in task completion time and the potential to support real-time human reliability assessment. Further integration into dynamic HRA frameworks (e.g., COGMIF) and real-time decision support systems (e.g., DRIF) illustrates AutoGraph extensibility in enhancing procedural safety and cognitive performance in complex socio-technical systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 103687 (2025)

    Zhang, M., Dai, L., Chen, W., Pang, E.: Analysis of human errors in nuclear power plant event reports. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 103687 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Technical report, Idaho National Lab.(INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States) (2012)

    Blanc, K.L., Oxstrand, J.: Requirements for computer based-procedures for nuclear power plant field operators results from a qualitative study. Technical report, Idaho National Lab.(INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States) (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Technical report, Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States) (2024)

    Hall, A.: Digitalized procedures in nuclear power operations. Technical report, Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States) (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Knowledge-Based Systems 163, 214–226 (2019)

    Mantle, M., Batsakis, S., Antoniou, G.: Large scale distributed spatio-temporal reasoning using real-world knowledge graphs. Knowledge-Based Systems 163, 214–226 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 38–54 (2021)

    Boy, G.A.: Human systems integration and design. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 38–54 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, ??? (1981) 19

    Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.N.R.C.O.: Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, ??? (1981) 19

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA (2008)

    O’Hara, J.M., Higgins, J., Brown, W., Fink, R., Persensky, J., Lewis, P., Kramer, J., Szabo, A., Boggi, M.: Human factors considerations with respect to emerg- ing technology in nuclear power plants. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Human Factors in Nuclear Safety, 277–311 (1996)

    Kirwan, B.: Human reliability assessment in the uk nuclear power and reprocess- ing industries. Human Factors in Nuclear Safety, 277–311 (1996)

    work page 1996

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 111080 (2025)

    Xiao, X., Qi, B., Liu, S., Chen, P., Liang, J., Tong, J., Wang, H.: A dynamic risk- informed framework for emergency human error prevention in high-risk industries: A nuclear power plant case study. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 111080 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Energies 17(10), 2439 (2024)

    Xiao, X., Liang, J., Tong, J., Wang, H.: Emergency decision support techniques for nuclear power plants: Current state, challenges, and future trends. Energies 17(10), 2439 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Electronics 11(19), 3065 (2022)

    Cantucci, F., Falcone, R.: Collaborative autonomy: Human–robot interaction to the test of intelligent help. Electronics 11(19), 3065 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Computers in Human Behavior 119, 106730 (2021)

    Haesevoets, T., De Cremer, D., Dierckx, K., Van Hiel, A.: Human-machine col- laboration in managerial decision making. Computers in Human Behavior 119, 106730 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    In: Computing in Civil Engineering 2023, pp

    Xing, J., Liu, P., Tang, P., Boring, R.L., Ulrich, T.A., Lew, R., Edward Gibson Jr, G.: Enhancing nuclear power plant operations: An ontology for conditional tasks. In: Computing in Civil Engineering 2023, pp. 597–604 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    International Journal of Applied Information Systems 4(2), 46–55 (2012)

    Meenachi, N.M., Baba, M.S.: A survey on usage of ontology in different domains. International Journal of Applied Information Systems 4(2), 46–55 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Image Processing, Electronics and Computers, pp

    Tian, X., Zhang, J.: Effectiveness evaluation of accurate prevention and control of civil aviation illegal interference behavior based on knowledge graph and ga algo- rithm. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Image Processing, Electronics and Computers, pp. ...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Heliyon 9(10) (2023)

    Wen, P., Zhao, Y., Liu, J.: A systematic knowledge graph-based smart manage- ment method for operations: A case study of standardized management. Heliyon 9(10) (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    In: Proc

    Simone, F., Akel, A.J.N., Alvino, A., Ansaldi, S.M., Agnello, P., Milazzo, M.F., Gravio, G., Patriarca, R.: ‘extending safety control structures: A knowledge graph for stamp. In: Proc. 33rd Eur. Saf. Rel. Conf, pp. 2581–2588 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Psychol- ogy Press, ??? (2000) 20

    Schraagen, J.M., Chipman, S.F., Shalin, V.L.: Cognitive Task Analysis. Psychol- ogy Press, ??? (2000) 20

    2000

  11. [19]

    International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 2(4), 287–305 (1990)

    Karwowski, W., Kosiba, E., Benabdallah, S., Salvendy, G.: A framework for development of fuzzy goms model for human-computer interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 2(4), 287–305 (1990)

    1990

  12. [20]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3(CSCW), 1–22 (2019)

    Chen, C., Feng, S., Xing, Z., Liu, L., Zhao, S., Wang, J.: Gallery dc: Design search and knowledge discovery through auto-created gui component gallery. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3(CSCW), 1–22 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    OHara, J.M., Higgins, J.: Human-system interfaces to automatic systems: Review guidance and technical basis (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Whaley, A.M.: Adapting the cognitive framework of nureg-2114 for use in human error analysis for ap1000 plant licensing in the united kingdom. In: Advances in Human Error, Reliability, Resilience, and Performance: Proceedings of the AHFE 2017 International Conference on Human ...

    2018

  15. [23]

    In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp

    Zu, W., Song, W., Chen, R., Guo, Z., Sun, F., Tian, Z., Pan, W., Wang, J.: Language and sketching: An llm-driven interactive multimodal multitask robot navigation framework. In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1019–1025 (2024). IEEE

    2024

  16. [24]

    Nuclear Technology 202(2-3), 201–209 (2018)

    Al Rashdan, A., Oxstrand, J., Agarwal, V.: Automated work packages: Capabil- ities of the future. Nuclear Technology 202(2-3), 201–209 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology, 1–1 (2010)

    McKnight, P.E., Najab, J.: Mann-whitney u test. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology, 1–1 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 16) Conference (2022)

    Boring, R., Ulrich, T., Park, J., Heo, Y., Ahn, J.: The hunter dynamic human reliability analysis tool: overview of the enhanced framework for modeling human digital twins. In: Proceedings of the Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 16) Conference (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18604 (2025)

    Xiao, X., Chen, P., Tong, J., Liu, S., Zhao, H., Zhao, J., Jia, Q., Liang, J., Wang, H.: A cognitive-mechanistic human reliability analysis framework: A nuclear power plant case study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18604 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Setthawong, P., Setthawong, R.: Updated goals operators methods and selec- tion rules (goms) with touch screen operations for quantitative analysis of user interfaces. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol 9(1), 258 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    In: International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, vol

    Chen, P., Tong, J.: Influence of nuclear power plant interface complexity on oper- ator performance: A modeling study. In: International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, vol. 88230, pp. 003–03011 (2024). American Society of Mechanical Engineers 21

    2024

  22. [30]

    Energies 17(1), 159 (2023)

    Xiao, X., Qi, B., Liang, J., Tong, J., Deng, Q., Chen, P.: Enhancing loca breach size diagnosis with fundamental deep learning models and optimized dataset construction. Energies 17(1), 159 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Progress in Nuclear Energy 177, 105421 (2024)

    Qi, B., Sun, J., Sui, Z., Xiao, X., Liang, J.: Multimodal learning using large lan- guage models to improve transient identification of nuclear power plants. Progress in Nuclear Energy 177, 105421 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the 2016 European Safety and Reliability Conference, pp

    Boring, R., Rasmussen, M.: Goms-hra: A method for treating subtasks in dynamic human reliability analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2016 European Safety and Reliability Conference, pp. 956–963 (2016) 22

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.