Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

CNOT Oriented Synthesis for Small-Scale Boolean Functions Using Spatial Structures of Parallelotopes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By viewing the on-set of a Boolean function as parallelotopes embedded in its hypercube, this paper constructs quantum oracle circuits with fewer CNOT gates than ESOP or XAG synthesis, reporting 56% and 81% reductions at five variables and

desk verdict Clever idea, but the circuits don't implement the stated oracles because the input register is never restored. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01912 v2 pith:6OASP3T6 submitted 2025-09-02 quant-ph

Qiang Zheng , Yongzhen Xu , Jiaxi Zhang , Zhaofeng Su , Shenggen Zheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68
keywords quantumcircuitsynthesisBooleanfunctionsparallelotopeMulti-ControlToffoligatesCNOTgateoptimizationweightedparitysetcoveroracleNPNequivalence
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

A Boolean function's on-set, read as a subset of the n-dimensional hypercube, contains boxes (parallelotopes) generated by m orthogonal binary directions. This paper argues that each such box is a quantum-circuit atom: 2^m minterms can be implemented by a single (n−m)-controlled Toffoli gate plus a CNOT wiring pattern, with no auxiliary qubits needed to store intermediate results. Two algorithms consume these atoms: SSHR-H selects them greedily for fast synthesis, while SSHR-I formulates the whole task as a weighted parity set-cover problem solved by an ILP, requiring on-set minterms to be covered odd times and off-set minterms even times. The experimental claim is that the ILP variant lowers CNOT counts by 56% versus ESOP and 81% versus XAG for 5-bit functions, with consistent reductions in T-counts and ancillary qubits, and that the heuristic variant extends to 7- and 8-bit functions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parallelotope: the Minkowski sum of m linearly independent line segments inside {0,1}^n. Lemma 1 requires the basis vectors to have disjoint 1-positions, which is what lets a single Multi-Control Toffoli gate test all 2^m vertices at once in Theorem 1. The second piece of machinery is the Weighted Parity Set-Covering Problem (WP-SCP): binary variables pick parallelotopes, parity constraints force odd/even coverage on on/off minterms, and a weighted objective counts CNOT and T-gate costs. This turns circuit synthesis into an integer program whose feasible region contains every ESOP decomposition.

What would settle it

Run the paper's Section IV-D example through Algorithm 1: take the selected translated parallelotope S2=[0110,1110], apply the block to every 4-bit input with the target qubit in |0>, and check whether the target equals the Boolean function's value on all 16 inputs and whether all input qubits return to their starting values. A single mismatch refutes the correctness premise. The same exhaustive check can be automated for all 3- and 4-variable functions by synthesizing each with SSHR-I and simulating the resulting circuit as a permutation on (n+1)-qubit basis states.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A Boolean function's on-set can be decomposed into parallelotopes, the boxes in its n-dimensional hypercube generated by m orthogonal binary vectors. The paper proves that 2^m minterms forming such a box cost one (n−m)-controlled MCT gate plus the CNOTs that wire it: basis-vector positions are made disjoint, CNOTs copy the pattern onto them, one MCT tests the common coordinates, and X gates supply the needed 0-controls. Synthesis then becomes parity selection—choose boxes so on-set minterms are covered odd times and off-set minterms even times—implemented greedily in SSHR-H or as an integer program in SSHR-I. Since every ESOP product term is a degenerate parallelotope, a feasible solution al

Load-bearing premise

The method rests on the assumption that Algorithm 1 produces a valid oracle block for every selected parallelotope—flipping the target qubit exactly on those 2^m minterms and restoring every input qubit—but the paper gives no derivation that the CNOTs introduced in the first loop are undone, and translated parallelotopes such as S2=[0110,1110] are not covered by the stated Minkowski-sum definition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, small quantum oracles for functions up to 6 variables can be built with roughly half to one-fifth the CNOT gates of current ESOP and XAG flows, without clean ancillas during the core construction.
  • The parity set-cover formulation provides a formal feasibility guarantee, because every ESOP product term is itself a 0-dimensional parallelotope inside the search space.
  • The objective function can be switched between CNOT-count and T-count minimization, letting the same geometric decomposition target different hardware cost structures.
  • SSHR-H extends the approach to 7- and 8-variable functions, where the paper reports roughly 74% fewer CNOTs than XAG while ESOP no longer completes.
  • Because blocks are selected by parity rather than by sequential dependency, the composed circuit is logically layer-swappable, leaving room for later depth-oriented reordering.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The parity set-cover model uses only odd/even coverage, so the same ILP machinery could be pointed at random functions beyond 8 variables; the reported two-minute solver timeout is the likely bottleneck and would need heuristic warm starts.
  • The claimed layer exchangeability is logical exchangeability under XOR, not a proof that CNOT wiring can be arbitrarily reordered; a direct simulation test would settle whether block-swapping changes the composed circuit's behavior.
  • The paper's own example includes translated boxes such as S2=[0110,1110], which do not contain the all-zero vertex; giving Algorithm 1 an explicit convention for translated boxes would let the method apply unchanged to functions not anchored at the origin.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SSHR, a method for synthesizing quantum oracles for small Boolean functions (≤8 variables) by exploiting the spatial structure of parallelotopes in the Boolean hypercube. Two variants are presented: SSHR-H, a greedy heuristic, and SSHR-I, an ILP-based solver for a Weighted Parity Set Covering Problem. The central theoretical claim is Theorem 1, which states that if the on-set contains an m-dimensional parallelotope, the oracle can be implemented using one (n−m)-MCT gate via Algorithm 1. The paper reports substantial CNOT and T-count reductions compared to ESOP and XAG baselines.

Significance. The conceptual direction—using global geometric structure of Boolean functions to guide oracle synthesis—is appealing, and the ILP parity-set-cover formulation is a flexible way to optimize different gate metrics. If the construction were correct, the reported reductions (56% and 81% CNOT savings over ESOP and XAG for 5-bit functions) would be practically valuable for small-scale NISQ oracle implementations. However, the paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or reproducible code, and the central circuit construction is not validated. The significance of the empirical claims is therefore contingent on correcting the fundamental issues described below.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 adds CNOTs in lines 4–10 but never reverses them. Thus the input register is not restored, contradicting the oracle definition in §II-B and the statement in §III that 'intermediate results... are recovered after use.' Concretely, for n=2 with α=(1,0), the block maps |x0,x1,y⟩ to |x0, x1⊕x0, y⊕¬(x1⊕x0)⟩ (where the X/MCT/X sequence toggles y when x1⊕x0=0), so y flips for x∈{00,11} rather than the intended vertices {00,10}. Hence Theorem 1 is false as stated, and the gate counts in Tables IV–VII are for circuits that do not compute the declared Boolean function.
  2. [§IV-D, Eq. (1)] The example selects S2=[0110,1110], a translated 1D parallelotope. Equation (1) defines a parallelotope as a Minkowski sum of segments from the origin, with no translation vector. Theorem 1's proof assumes without loss of generality that the first vertex is (0,…,0), but NPN input negation/permutation cannot translate an arbitrary vertex to the origin. Consequently, S2 lies outside the stated definition, and Algorithm 1, which initializes st=0, cannot synthesize it. The example therefore claims validity for a structure the proposed algorithm does not handle.
  3. [§IV-B, Table III, constraints (C2)-(C3)] The ILP formulation uses an undefined symbol B in constraints (C2)-(C3) and in the index set 'A − B'. Moreover, constraints (C4)-(C7) are not written out; the text merely lists '∀i∈S', '∀j∈U', etc. Without the exact constraint formulas and a definition of B, the WP-SCP model cannot be verified or reproduced, undermining the SSHR-I results in Tables VI–VII.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'prallelotopes' in the abstract, 'Algoritm 1' in §IV-B, and 'embed ed' in §VI. The writing also contains awkward phrases such as 'we statute the synthesis problem' in §I.
  2. [Fig. 4 and Fig. 5] The captions and diagrams are difficult to follow. Fig. 4's caption is incomplete ('common control qubits ... qout :'), and Fig. 5(b) does not clearly label which gate corresponds to each selected parallelotope. Please add explicit labels and a step-by-step trace for the example.
  3. [§V-A] The random generation of 5-bit and 6-bit Boolean functions is not specified in enough detail (no seeds, no distribution description), which limits reproducibility. Also, the two-minute ILP timeout is mentioned, but the optimality gap or frequency of timeout is not reported.
  4. [§V-B, Table V] The dash for ESOP for n>6 is justified by saying ESOP is unable to generate circuits, but no runtime or memory evidence is provided. If ESOP was simply not run, that should be stated separately.
  5. [§V-B, parameter R] The choice R=3/4 is argued heuristically, but no sensitivity analysis is presented. Since this parameter directly affects SSHR-H's behavior, a short study varying R would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; only a minor in-sample choice of the SSHR-H threshold R, while SSHR-I results are measured against external ESOP/XAG baselines.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V-B (Results of SSHR-H), around Tables IV-V]
    "Based on this trade-off, we empirically chose R = 3/4 as a suitable compromise for small-scale Boolean functions. The validity of the heuristic threshold is demonstrated in Tab. IV."

    SSHR-H's selection rule is controlled by the threshold R. The paper states that R was 'empirically chose[n]' and that its 'validity' is demonstrated by the same Table IV that reports SSHR-H's gate counts. Since R was selected by inspecting the benchmark results, using those same results as evidence of validity is an in-sample validation loop rather than an independent confirmation. This is minor because R is a single heuristic threshold; the headline 56%/81% CNOT reductions come from SSHR-I, which is not tuned this way, and the rest of the derivation chain is not circular.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation—parallelotope extraction, the parity set-cover formulation, and the synthesis of CNOT/MCT blocks—is not circular. The SSHR-I gate counts are measured outputs of an ILP optimizing an explicit cost function, compared against external ESOP and XAG baselines using the same decomposition cost model; that cost model being used both as objective and evaluation metric is consistent, not circular. The only mild circularity is the manual selection of the SSHR-H threshold R on the same benchmarks used to report performance. The paper's more serious apparent issue—Algorithm 1 never undoing the CNOTs applied to the input register—is a functional-correctness concern rather than circularity, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on two external inputs: the MCT decomposition cost model (Table II, from [9]) and an unproved claim that Algorithm 1 realizes a clean oracle block. The heuristic threshold R and the objective weights alpha,beta are free parameters chosen on the evaluation suite. No new physical entities are introduced; 'parallelotope' and 'spatial structure' are reformulations of affine subspaces in the Boolean hypercube.

free parameters (2)
  • R (SSHR-H intersection threshold) = 3/4
    Section V-B states R is 'empirically chosen' to balance parallelotope overlap; it is hand-tuned and evaluated on the same benchmark suite.
  • alpha and beta in objective function Eq. 9 = one of alpha,beta set to 1 and the other to 0 depending on the experiment
    The weights for CNOT cost vs T cost in Eq. 9 are chosen by the user and no sensitivity analysis is reported; the simultaneous improvements are claimed for specific choices.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The k-MCT decomposition costs in Table II are the correct metric for comparing synthesis methods.
    All reported T, CNOT and ancilla counts for SSHR, ESOP and XAG are computed using this table from [9]; different decomposition schemes would change the numerical claims.
  • domain assumption A valid quantum oracle must leave the input register unchanged.
    This is the standard definition used in the paper's oracle equation; Algorithm 1 appears to violate it because the CNOTs used to compute parities are not uncomputed.
  • ad hoc to paper Every selected parallelotope can be synthesized by Algorithm 1 as a clean oracle block with no input modification and with one MCT gate as claimed.
    This is the load-bearing premise; Theorem 1 is offered as proof but the algorithm listing lacks uncomputation gates and does not cover translated parallelotopes such as S2 in the example.
  • standard math Basis vectors of a hypercube parallelotope must be pairwise disjoint in support (Lemma 1).
    Used to restrict the Minkowski sum to the hypercube; it is true for the [0,1] definition but limits the class of sets representable without translation handling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CNOT Oriented Synthesis for Small-Scale Boolean Functions Using Spatial Structures of Parallelotopes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6OASP3T6

@misc{pith2026250901912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CNOT Oriented Synthesis for Small-Scale Boolean Functions Using Spatial Structures of Parallelotopes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6OASP3T6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01912}
}
abstract

Quantum computing has garnered significant interest for its potential to achieve exponential speedups over classical approaches. However, in the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era, quantum circuit scalability remains limited by gate fidelity and qubit counts, restricting physical implementations to small-scale circuits. While prior work has explored logic network structures for quantum circuit synthesis, these methods often neglect the spatial structure intrinsic to Boolean functions. In this paper, we leverage this spatial structure, encoded by parallelotopes embedded in the hypercube defined by the Boolean function, to access a broader optimization space, enhancing synthesis efficiency and reducing circuit complexity. We propose the Spatial Structure-based Hypercube Reduction~(SSHR), a novel synthesis method tailored for small-scale Boolean functions ($\leq 8$). SSHR extracts global spatial features to minimize the use of Multi-Control Toffoli (MCT) gates. To further exploit spatial correlations, we introduce two variants: SSHR-H employs heuristic functions to accelerate synthesis runtime, while SSHR-I integrates an Integer Linear Programming (ILP) solver to maximize spatial structure utilization. Our approach outperforms existing techniques in small-scale circuit synthesis, achieving 56\% and 81\% reductions in CNOT gate counts compared to the Exclusive Sum-of-Products (ESOP) and Xor-And-Inverter Graph (XAG) methods, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01912 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of low-dimensional parallelotope. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hypercubes of three 3-variable Boolean functions. 3-majority [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Circuit demonstration of a Quantum Oracle where the input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of Alg. 1. Based on the aforementioned properties, we can use Alg. 1 to synthesize quantum circuits. By applying Alg. 1, synthesizing the 2 m minterms, which form an m-dimensional parallelotope in an n￾dimensional space, requires at most one (n − m)-MCT gate…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An example of a quantum circuit for the oracle of a 4-bit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” in Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , 1996, pp. 212–219

    1996

  2. [2]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,

    P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,”SIAM review, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 303–332, 1999

    1999

  3. [3]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations,

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations,” Physical review letters , vol. 103, no. 15, p. 150502, 2009

    2009

  4. [4]

    On the power of quantum computation,

    D. R. Simon, “On the power of quantum computation,” SIAM journal on computing, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1474–1483, 1997

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    6-qubit optimal clifford circuits,

    S. Bravyi, J. A. Latone, and D. Maslov, “6-qubit optimal clifford circuits,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 8, no. 1, p. 79, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Quantum boolean functions

    A. Montanaro and T. J. Osborne, “Quantum boolean functions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:0810.2435, 2008

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Esop-based toffoli gate cascade generation,

    K. Fazel, M. A. Thornton, and J. E. Rice, “Esop-based toffoli gate cascade generation,” in Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Pacific Rim Conference on Communications, Computers and Signal Processing , 2007, pp. 206–209

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Xor-and-inverter graphs for quantum compilation,

    G. Meuli, M. Soeken, and G. De Micheli, “Xor-and-inverter graphs for quantum compilation,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 8, no. 1, p. 7, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    XOR-AND-XOR logic forms for autosymmetric functions and applica- tions to quantum computing,

    A. Bernasconi, A. Berti, V . Ciriani, G. M. D. Corso, and I. Fulginiti, “XOR-AND-XOR logic forms for autosymmetric functions and applica- tions to quantum computing,” IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst., vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1861–1872, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Shallow quantum circuit implementation of symmetric functions with limited ancillary qubits,

    W. Zi, J. Nie, and X. Sun, “Shallow quantum circuit implementation of symmetric functions with limited ancillary qubits,” arXiv:2404.06052, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Optimal synthesis of linear reversible circuits

    K. N. Patel, I. L. Markov, and J. P. Hayes, “Optimal synthesis of linear reversible circuits.” Quantum Inf. Comput. , vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 282–294, 2008

    2008

  4. [12]

    Con- structive reversible logic synthesis for boolean functions with special properties,

    A. Chattopadhyay, S. Majumder, C. Chandak, and N. Chowdhury, “Con- structive reversible logic synthesis for boolean functions with special properties,” in Reversible Computation: 6th International Conference, RC 2014, Kyoto, Japan, July 10-11, 2014. Proceedings 6 . Springer, 2...

    2014

  5. [13]

    Transport implementation of the bernstein–vazirani algorithm with ion qubits,

    S. Fallek, C. Herold, B. McMahon, K. Maller, K. Brown, and J. Amini, “Transport implementation of the bernstein–vazirani algorithm with ion qubits,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 18, no. 8, p. 083030, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Demonstration of a small programmable quantum computer with atomic qubits,

    S. Debnath, N. M. Linke, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, and C. Monroe, “Demonstration of a small programmable quantum computer with atomic qubits,” Nature, vol. 536, no. 7614, pp. 63–66, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Multilevel logic synthesis,

    R. K. Brayton, G. D. Hachtel, and A. L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, “Multilevel logic synthesis,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 264–300, 1990

    1990

  8. [16]

    Determinants and the volumes of paral- lelotopes and zonotopes,

    E. Gover and N. Krikorian, “Determinants and the volumes of paral- lelotopes and zonotopes,” Linear Algebra and its Applications , vol. 433, no. 1, pp. 28–40, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    Fast exact npn classification with influence-aided canonical form,

    Y . Zhang, L. Ni, J. Zhang, G. Luo, H. Li, and S. Zheng, “Fast exact npn classification with influence-aided canonical form,” in 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 01–09

    2023

  10. [18]

    A heuristic boolean npn equivalent matching verification method based on shannon decom- position,

    J. Zhang, W. Guo, G. Yang, Y . Zhu, and X. Lv, “A heuristic boolean npn equivalent matching verification method based on shannon decom- position,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 120 369–120 382, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Rethinking npn classification from face and point characteristics of boolean functions,

    J. Zhang, S. Zheng, L. Ni, H. Li, and G. Luo, “Rethinking npn classification from face and point characteristics of boolean functions,” in 2023 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  12. [20]

    Exact quantum algorithms have advantage for almost all boolean functions,

    A. Ambainis, J. Gruska, and S. Zheng, “Exact quantum algorithms have advantage for almost all boolean functions,” Quantum Information and Computation, vol. 15, no. 5&6, pp. 0435–0452, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    Elementary quantum gate realizations for multiple-control toffoli gates,

    D. M. Miller, R. Wille, and Z. Sasanian, “Elementary quantum gate realizations for multiple-control toffoli gates,” in 2011 41st IEEE inter- national symposium on multiple-valued logic. IEEE, 2011, pp. 288–293

    2011

  15. [23]

    Two-bit gates are universal for quantum computa- tion,

    D. P. DiVincenzo, “Two-bit gates are universal for quantum computa- tion,” Physical Review A , vol. 51, no. 2, p. 1015, 1995

    1995

  16. [24]

    Elementary gates for quantum computation,

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, “Elementary gates for quantum computation,” Physical review A , vol. 52, no. 5, p. 3457, 1995

    1995

  17. [25]

    Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions,

    M. Plesch and ˇC. Brukner, “Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions,” Physical Review A , vol. 83, no. 3, p. 032302, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction . Califor- nia Institute of Technology, 1997

    1997

  19. [27]

    On the sum of a parallelotope and a zonotope,

    M. D. Sikiri ´c, V . Grishukhin, and A. Magazinov, “On the sum of a parallelotope and a zonotope,” European Journal of Combinatorics , vol. 42, pp. 49–73, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Gurobi optimizer reference manual

    Gurobi Optimization,Inc. Gurobi optimizer reference manual. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.gurobi.com/

    2024

  21. [29]

    Riener, “easy,” https://github.com/hriener/easy, 2024, version MIT-1- ov-file

    H. Riener, “easy,” https://github.com/hriener/easy, 2024, version MIT-1- ov-file

    2024

  22. [30]

    The role of multiplicative complexity in compiling low t-count oracle circuits,

    G. Meuli, M. Soeken, E. Campbell, M. Roetteler, and G. De Micheli, “The role of multiplicative complexity in compiling low t-count oracle circuits,” in 2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer- Aided Design (ICCAD) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.