Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 45 references

An algebraically closed family of informational n-qubit purity invariants

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A family of quadratic Pauli expressions is constant on every pure n-qubit state, generalising the two-qubit pentagon identities.

desk verdict Clean algebraic family of n-qubit purity invariants that genuinely generalizes the pentagons; theorem is right, but the printed proof of Theorem 1 has an off-by-one that a referee will catch. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24987 v1 pith:WOTOWOSE submitted 2026-07-27 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Markus Frembs , Giovanni Natale , Christopher S.P. Wever , Philipp A. Hoehn This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP PACS 03.67.-a03.65.Ta03.65.Ud
keywords n-qubitpurestatesPauligrouppurityinvariantsBrukner-ZeilingerinformationcomplementarityCliffordmutuallyunbiasedbasesBlochrepresentation
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

For any number of qubits, certain carefully chosen sets of Pauli operators have the property that the sum of the squared expectation values on those operators is always the same number for every pure state. That constant equals 2 to the power n-minus-1. The sets recover the familiar single-qubit Bloch-sphere condition and the two-qubit pentagon identities, and they continue to work for three or more qubits where simple anti-commuting collections fail. The construction is closed under anti-commutators, contains no full set of mutually commuting Paulis, and sits in a single orbit under Clifford conjugation. The resulting equalities are informational complementarity relations: knowing everything about one such set leaves you completely ignorant of its complement. They therefore give an explicit algebraic description of the pure-state manifold that earlier reconstruction work had only for two qubits.

What carries the argument

The sets J of Definition 1, together with the general identity that expresses I_ρ(S) in terms of commutant sizes inside S. Because those commutant sizes are constant on J and on L, the identity collapses to a numerical constant fixed by the value on stabilizer states.

What would settle it

Compute the sum of squared Bloch components over any explicit J for two distinct pure states (for example a product state and a stabilizer state that is not an eigenstate of a subgroup inside J); if the two sums differ, Theorem 1 is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Every set J built from a pair of complementary maximal Abelian Pauli subgroups, a pair of codimension-one subgroups, and two generating elements satisfying the stated commutation conditions (and every Clifford conjugate of such a set) satisfies I_ψ(J)=2^{n-1} for every pure n-qubit state ψ. The same constancy holds for the complement L. Thus these quadratics are state-independent purity invariants for all n.

Load-bearing premise

The sizes of the sets of operators inside J (and inside its complement) that commute with a given Pauli are the same no matter which Pauli you pick inside each piece; if those sizes varied, the information sum would not be forced to a single number.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The pure-state manifold of n qubits admits an explicit algebraic description by these quadratic equalities for every n.
  • The same family encodes the action of the projective unitary group (up to complex conjugation) on pure states, generalising the two-qubit case.
  • Each such J yields a maximal complementarity equality in the Brukner–Zeilinger information measure and therefore a strong uncertainty relation.
  • There are exactly 2^{n-1}(2^n-1) distinct Clifford-conjugate copies of these invariants.
  • The algebraic closure properties under (anti)commutators distinguish this family from many other purity invariants that exist once n>2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the invariants are quadratic and Clifford-covariant, they can serve as cheap, state-independent checks inside tomography or certification protocols without reconstructing the full density matrix.
  • The same constant-commutant technique may produce analogous invariants for qudits once a suitable symplectic section of the Heisenberg–Weyl group is fixed.
  • Error-correcting codes whose stabilizers intersect these J-sets in controlled ways could inherit automatic purity or distance bounds from the complementarity equalities.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs, for every n≥1, an explicit family of subsets J⊂P̃_n of the Hermitian n-qubit Paulis (Def. 1, extended by Clifford conjugation via Lm. 1) and proves that the Brukner–Zeilinger quadratic information I_ψ(J)=Σ_{Q∈J}α_Q² equals 2^{n−1} for every pure state (Thm. 1), generalising the two-qubit pentagon identities. The proof chain is: closure of the J/L partition under (anti-)commutators (Lm. 2); exclusion of maximal Abelian subgroups from J via an Arf-type invariant Δ(φ)=−2^n (Lm. 3, App. D); a general identity expressing I_ψ(S) through commutant cardinalities (Lm. 4, App. B); and constancy of those cardinalities on J and L (Lm. 5, App. E). Thm. 2 counts 2^{n−1}(2^n−1) such sets, recovering 6 pentagons at n=2 and giving 28 explicit sets at n=3 (App. H). I verified the lemma chain, including the App. E argument (Δ(P)=Δ(ϕ) for P∈J, 0 for P∈L) and the corrected final algebra, and I reproduce the claimed value. However, the displayed substitution step in the proof of Thm. 1 is wrong as printed (identity contribution dropped), and solved literally yields (2^n−1)/2, contradicting the paper's own n=2 value; the corrected substitution gives exactly 2^{n−1}. This is an erratum-level defect at the decisive step of the main proof, not a flaw in the result.

Significance. If the result holds — and my checking of the lemma chain and of the n=2, n=3 cardinalities indicates it does — this closes a question left open since the 2017 informational reconstruction: what replaces the two-qubit pentagon identities for n qubits. The answer is a clean, closed-form family (Def. 1) with the constant 2^{n−1}, an explicit Clifford-orbit structure (Lm. 6), and an exact count (Thm. 2). Strengths: the proof is self-contained and parameter-free; the mechanism (closure relations Eq. (5) ⟹ quadratic refinement φ ⟹ Arf-type invariant Δ(φ)=−2^n ⟹ constant commutants) is transparent and reveals genuinely new structure absent at n=2; the n=1,2 degenerate cases and the failure of the naive generalisation (Prop. 1, explicit n=3 counterexample) are handled honestly; and the value is falsifiable by direct computation on any listed set. The work also usefully connects Brukner–Zeilinger complementarity to quadratic forms over GF(2). Broader claims (exhaustiveness, unitary-orbit encoding) are deferred to companions and are not assessed here.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 1, proof] Proof of Theorem 1, displayed substitution: Lemma 4 sums over 1≠P∈P̃_n, while I_ψ(J) as defined in Eq. (1) includes Q=1 with α_1=1 (footnote 25; the n=1 case J={1}, I=1=2^0). Hence Σ_{1≠P∈J}|C_J(P)|α_P² = |C_J(J∖{1})|·(I_ψ(J)−1), and the complementary sum is 2^n−1−(I_ψ(J)−1), not what is printed. Taken literally with App. E's values (|J|=2^{n−1}(2^n−1), |C_J(J)|=2^{n−1}(2^{n−1}−1), |C_J(L)|=4^{n−1}), the printed equation gives I=(2^n−1)/2 (for n=2: 3/2), contradicting the pentagon value I=2. With the corrected substitution the system gives 2I=2^n, i.e. I=2^{n−1} for all n. The result stands; the decisive displayed step must be corrected.
  2. [Theorem 1, proof (final step)] The value is pinned by 'equals the value for stabiliser states, which reads 2^{n−1} by Lm. 3', but Lm. 3 alone yields only I_ψ(J)≤2^{n−1} for stabiliser states (J∩A is closed under products by Lm. 2, hence a subgroup; ≠A by Lm. 3). Equality requires |J∩A|=2^{n−1}, e.g. by choosing a maximal Abelian A containing one of the dimension-(n−1) Abelian subgroups exhibited just before Lm. 3. Alternatively, note that the (corrected) linear system already determines I uniquely, making the pinning redundant. Either fix is one or two sentences.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendices A–E] The lemma numbering in the appendices does not match the main text: App. A contains a 'Lemma 2' that is main-text Lm. 1; App. B restates Lm. 4 as 'Lemma 1'; App. C restates Lm. 2 as 'Lemma 3'; App. D restates Lm. 3 as 'Lemma 4'. This makes cross-referencing needlessly confusing. App. E also cites 'Lm. (9)' with parentheses.
  2. [Throughout] Terminology: 'commutant' is defined but nonstandard for a subset of a group (centraliser is usual); 'uneven k' (App. A) should be 'odd k'; 'anti-commutating' appears several times; spelling alternates between 'generalising' and 'generalizing'. Footnote 41 ends with a double period; a full stop is missing after 'shown in Fig. 1'.
  3. [Sec. I B / Theorem 1] The identity-inclusion convention for I_ψ(S) in Eq. (1) should be stated explicitly once before the proof of Theorem 1, since the n=1 case (J={1}, I=1) and the pentagon normalisation (I=2 over six elements) both rely on it; this would also prevent the slip flagged above.
  4. [References / Introduction] Ref. [23] is listed as 'M. Frembs, (in preparation)' while the joint companions list all four authors; please check the author list. The claim in the introduction that the pentagon identities are 'the only prediction by any reconstruction of novel structural properties' is strong and would benefit from a qualifier or a supporting citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 is a self-contained algebraic derivation from the Pauli symplectic structure; self-citations are motivational/contextual only.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is Definition 1 (algebraic construction of J from complementary Abelian subgroups and normalized (anti)commutators) → Lemmas 2–3 (closure and no maximal Abelian subgroup, proved from the product formula for the indicator φ and the Arf-type sum Δ(φ)=−2^n) → Lemma 4 (general identity for I_ρ(S) from tr[ρ²]=1 and the Pauli basis) → Lemma 5 (commutant cardinalities constant on J\{1} and on L, from the same φ) → Theorem 1 (constancy of I_ψ(J), value pinned by stabilizer states). None of these steps defines J in terms of purity invariance, fits a parameter to data, or imports a uniqueness theorem that already assumes I_ψ(J)=const. Citations to the authors’ reconstruction papers [1,2] supply the n=2 pentagon motivation and the Brukner–Zeilinger measure; companions [22,23] are flagged for broader complementarity/exhaustiveness claims and are not used inside the proof of Theorem 1. The skeptic’s off-by-one observation about the printed substitution in Theorem 1 is a correctness/erratum issue, not a circular reduction of the claim to its inputs. Score 1 only for ordinary contextual self-citation that is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper is a pure-math derivation inside the standard n-qubit Pauli/Clifford formalism. It inherits the Brukner–Zeilinger quadratic information measure and the known structure of the Pauli group over GF(2); it does not fit parameters. The only ‘new objects’ are the constructed J-sets themselves, defined from ordinary subgroups and (anti)commutators, not postulated physical entities.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hermitian n-qubit Pauli operators P̃_n form an orthogonal Hilbert–Schmidt basis; every state has a Bloch expansion with ∑_{P≠1} α_P² ≤ 2^n−1, equality on pure states.
    Standard qubit Bloch representation; used from the Introduction through Lemma 4 and Theorem 1.
  • standard math Projective Pauli group ≅ (Z_2^{2n}, ω) with Clifford group mapping onto Sp(2n,Z_2); maximal Abelian subgroups are Lagrangian.
    Appendix A, Theorem 3 and Lemmas 7–8; used to put Def. 1 into canonical form via Clifford conjugation (Lemma 1).
  • domain assumption Brukner–Zeilinger information I_ρ(S)=∑_{Q∈S} α_Q² is the quantity whose level sets define purity invariants.
    Eq. (1); inherited from Brukner–Zeilinger and the authors’ reconstruction programme; the paper proves constancy of this functional on J, not a new information measure.
  • ad hoc to paper Indicator φ:P̃_n→Z_2 for membership in J vs L obeys the quadratic refinement φ(PQ)=φ(P)+φ(Q)+ω(P,Q) (mod 2), and its Arf-type sum Δ(φ) is Clifford-invariant and equal to −2^n for the sets of Def. 1.
    Introduced in the proofs of Lemmas 2–3 and 5 (Apps. C–E) to encode closure and rule out maximal Abelian subgroups inside J; standard quadratic-form facts over char 2 are used, but the specific φ is tied to this construction.
invented entities (1)
  • Family of sets J(Ã_X, Ã_Z, g^Z_X, g^X_Z) in Definition 1 independent evidence
    purpose: Provide explicit Pauli subsets whose Brukner–Zeilinger information is constant on all pure n-qubit states and that are algebraically closed under anti-commutators.
    Constructed from ordinary Abelian subgroups and (anti)commutators; not a new physical particle or force. Independent mathematical content is the purity-invariance theorem proved in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An algebraically closed family of informational n-qubit purity invariants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WOTOWOSE

@misc{pith2026260724987,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An algebraically closed family of informational n-qubit purity invariants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WOTOWOSE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24987}
}
read the original abstract

We present a family of quadratics in Pauli expectation values, and prove that they constitute state-independent invariants for all n-qubit pure states. This family generalises the two-qubit `pentagon identities', discovered in the reconstruction programme of [P. A. H\"ohn, Quantum 1, 38 (2017), P. A. H\"ohn and C. S. P. Wever, Phys. Rev. A 95, 012102 (2017)], where they characterise the space of pure states, as well as the unitary group, and are interpreted as complementarity equalities in the Brukner-Zeilinger information measure. The generalisation to arbitrarily many qubits is nontrivial as it requires new tools which in turn reveal novel structural properties that are absent in the two-qubit case. A thorough analysis of these properties, and their relation with mutual unbiasedness and complementarity in the n-qubit Pauli group, can be found in two companion papers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24987 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Venn diagram showing the set structure of the rele [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. A. H¨ ohn, Toolbox for reconstructing quantum theory from rules on information acquisition, Quantum1, 38 (2017). 6

    2017

  2. [2]

    P. A. H¨ ohn and C. S. P. Wever, Quantum theory from questions, Phys. Rev. A95, 012102 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Models for higher-dimensional ‘qudits’ exist as well [34] - and sometimes are preferrable to qubits - yet, their study is much less developped than their qubit counterparts

  4. [4]

    Jak´ obczyk and M

    L. Jak´ obczyk and M. Siennicki, Geometry of bloch vec- tors in two-qubit system, Physics Letters A286, 383 (2001)

    2001

  5. [5]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski,Geometry of Quan- tum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

    2006

  6. [6]

    Uskov and A

    D. Uskov and A. R. P. Rau, Geometric phases and bloch- sphere constructions for SU(n)groups with a complete description of the su(4) group, Phys. Rev. A78, 022331 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    Morelli, C

    S. Morelli, C. Eltschka, M. Huber, and J. Siewert, Corre- lation constraints and the bloch geometry of two qubits, Phys. Rev. A109, 012423 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Mosseri and R

    R. Mosseri and R. Dandoloff, Geometry of entangled states, bloch spheres and hopf fibrations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General34, 10243–10252 (2001)

    2001

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    B. A. Bernevig and H.-D. Chen, Geometry of the three- qubit state, entanglement and division algebras, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General36, 8325–8339 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    Sudbery, On local invariants of pure three-qubit states, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 34, 643–652 (2001)

    A. Sudbery, On local invariants of pure three-qubit states, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 34, 643–652 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    Jing, S.-M

    N. Jing, S.-M. Fei, M. Li, X. Li-Jost, and T. Zhang, Local unitary invariants of generic multiqubit states, Physical Review A92, 10.1103/physreva.92.022306 (2015)

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    Hardy, Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0101012

    L. Hardy, Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0101012

    2001 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Masanes and M

    L. Masanes and M. P. M¨ uller, A Derivation of quan- tum theory from physical requirements, New J. Phys. 13, 063001 (2011), arXiv:1004.1483 [quant-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Daki´ c andˇC

    B. Daki´ c andˇC. Brukner, Quantum theory and beyond: Is entanglement special, Deep beauty: understanding the quantum world through mathematical innovation , 365 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Infor- mational derivation of quantum theory, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics84, 012311 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    J. H. Selby, C. M. Scandolo, and B. Coecke, Recon- structing quantum theory from diagrammatic postulates, Quantum5, 445 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    M¨ uller, Probabilistic theories and reconstructions of quantum theory, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes , 028 (2021)

    M. M¨ uller, Probabilistic theories and reconstructions of quantum theory, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes , 028 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    P. A. H¨ ohn, Quantum theory from rules on informa- tion acquisition, Entropy19, 98 (2017), arXiv:1612.06849 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P. A. H¨ ohn, Reflections on the information paradigm in quantum and gravitational physics, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 880, 012014 (2017), arXiv:1706.06882 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Brukner and A

    ˇC. Brukner and A. Zeilinger, Operationally invariant in- formation in quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3354 (1999)

    1999

  13. [21]

    Brukner and A

    ˇC. Brukner and A. Zeilinger, Conceptual inadequacy of the shannon information in quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A63, 022113 (2001)

    2001

  14. [22]

    Frembs, G

    M. Frembs, G. Natale, C. Wever, and P. A. H¨ ohn, Max- imal complementarity in the n-qubit Pauli group (2026), (simultaneously on the arXiv)

    2026

  15. [23]

    Frembs, (in preparation)

    M. Frembs, (in preparation)

  16. [24]

    That states correspond with quantum states is, of course, part of the reconstruction in Ref. [1, 2]

  17. [25]

    The full set ̃P={1, X, Y, Z}⊗n and the identity always yield (trivial) identities,I tot ∶= ∑P∈ ̃Pn Iψ(P)−1=2 n−1 andI ψ(1)=1. Forn=1 this also yields a maximal set of mutually anti-commuting Pauli operators and this identity too is crucial for recovering the Bloch ball as the ...

  18. [26]

    Maximal cardinality in our notion of maximality is nec- essary as not all unextendible sets of mutually anti- commuting Paulis have the same cardinality [2]

  19. [27]

    Overloading notation slightly, we will also write1for the identity inM 2n(C) (the explicit dimension will be clear from context)

    For brevity, we sometimes omit tensor products, and writeP QforP⊗QwithP, Q∈ ̃Pn. Overloading notation slightly, we will also write1for the identity inM 2n(C) (the explicit dimension will be clear from context)

  20. [28]

    Sarkar and E

    R. Sarkar and E. van den Berg, On sets of maximally commuting and anticommuting Pauli operators, Res. Math. Sci.8, 14 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Lawrence, ˇC

    J. Lawrence, ˇC. Brukner, and A. Zeilinger, Mutually un- biased binary observable sets on n qubits, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032320 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    Here,X i/Zi denote the Pauli strings with only non- identity factorX/Zin thei-th slot, e.g.X 3 =11X1⋯1

  23. [31]

    1 since disjointness is not af- fected by conjugation

    This also follows from Lm. 1 since disjointness is not af- fected by conjugation

  24. [32]

    There are no other (nontrivial) purity invariants in this case, since a single-qubit pure stateψ∈PC 1 is described by two real parameters, which coincides (only forn=1) with the parametrisation of the ‘Bloch sphere’, defined by tr[ρ2]=1(=tr[ρ]), that is, ∑1≠P∈ ̃Pn α2 P =1 (and...

  25. [33]

    Fujii, Geometric flow of bloch sphere manifolds and quantum error corrections, HAL (2025)

    G. Fujii, Geometric flow of bloch sphere manifolds and quantum error corrections, HAL (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Y. Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, Qudits and high-dimensional quantum computing, Frontiers in Physics8, 589504 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Arf, Untersuchungen ¨ uber quadratische Formen in K¨ orpern der Charakteristik 2., Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik1941, 148 (1941)

    C. Arf, Untersuchungen ¨ uber quadratische Formen in K¨ orpern der Charakteristik 2., Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik1941, 148 (1941)

    1941

  28. [36]

    R. H. Dye, On the Arf Invariant, Journal of Algebra53, 36 (1978)

    1978

  29. [37]

    Knebusch and T

    M. Knebusch and T. Unger,Specialization of Quadratic and Symmetric Bilinear Forms, Algebra and Applica- tions, Vol. 11 (Springer London, 2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    De Beaudrap, A linearized stabilizer formalism for systems of finite dimension, Quantum Info

    N. De Beaudrap, A linearized stabilizer formalism for systems of finite dimension, Quantum Info. Comput.13, 73 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    G. Nebe, E. M. Rains, and N. J. A. Sloane, The Invari- ants of the Clifford Groups, Des. Codes, Cryptogr.24, 99 (2001)

    2001

  32. [40]

    Dehaene and B

    J. Dehaene and B. De Moor, Clifford group, stabilizer states, and linear and quadratic operations over GF(2), Phys. Rev. A68, 042318 (2003)

    2003

  33. [41]

    In other words,φinϕ=(−1) φ is a quadratic refine- ment ofω, that is,φ(QP)=φ(P)+φ(Q)+ω(P, Q)(cf. Ref. [23])

  34. [42]

    In other words,G,G ′ define a symplectic basis in the symplectic vector spaceZ 2n 2 ≅ ̃Pn

  35. [43]

    For more 7 details on the relation between quadratic forms, their Arf invariant and the relation with the characterisation of pu- rity invariants, see Ref

    ∆(φ)is called theArf invariantof a quadratic formφin characteristic 2 and, together with its dimension, deter- mines it uniquely (up to equivalence) [35–37]. For more 7 details on the relation between quadratic forms, their Arf invariant and the relation with the characterisat...

  36. [44]

    More generally,φfactorises with respect to any decom- position of ̃Pn into orthogonal symplectic subspaces

  37. [45]

    6, and the fact that cardinalities remain invariant under Clifford conjugation

    Alternatively, the invariance of ∆(ϕ)also follows from the Lm. 6, and the fact that cardinalities remain invariant under Clifford conjugation. Appendix A: Symplectic structure of Pauli group and proof of Lm. 1 LetP n =⟨1, X, Y, Z⟩⊗n denote then-qubit Pauli group. LetK={±i,±1}=...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.