Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Attracting without being attracted: Dark Matter as an aether wind

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A permanent breakdown of diffeomorphism invariance can leave a non-dynamical source that attracts normal matter but is not itself attracted, and in spherical symmetry this source produces flat rotation curves.

desk verdict Creative and honest exploration of painted-on dark matter, but the central clipping mechanism is unfinished and the flat rotation curves are an input, not a prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04544 v1 pith:3Y2CK4LW submitted 2025-05-07 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Raymond Isichei , Joao Magueijo This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th MSC 83C0583C5783D05 PACS 04.20.-q95.35.+d
keywords darkmatteraetherwindpreferredframebrokendiffeomorphisminvariancenon-conservedsourceclippedEinsteinequationsflatrotationcurvescriticalhalo
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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

This paper proposes that part of what is called dark matter is not matter at all but a relic of a preferred frame: a non-dynamical density $\Delta(x)$ painted on a foliation, which attracts normal matter without being attracted itself. In the Newtonian limit this deviant source is logically consistent, but in general relativity the Bianchi identities forbid it, so the paper modifies Einstein's equations by 'clipping' some of them with a projector. In spherical symmetry, a constant $\Delta$ gives a critical halo with density $m_0/(4\pi r^2)$ and a logarithmic potential, producing flat rotation curves with or without a central black hole. The model's weakness is that $\Delta$ can be set to zero to evade every experiment; its strength is that if present it leaves inimitable signatures such as altered binary orbits and space-dependent PPN parameters.

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-dynamical 'painted-on' density $\Delta(x)$ on a preferred foliation, defining the source $T^{\Delta}_{\mu\nu} = \Delta\sqrt{h}\,n_\mu n_\nu$. To couple it to gravity, the paper introduces a clipping projector $P^{\alpha\beta}_{\mu\nu}$ that removes selected Einstein equations (and the corresponding metric variables); in the spherically symmetric case this freezes the angular metric so that no angular Einstein equations appear. The load-bearing solution is the critical halo: for constant $\Delta = \Delta_0$, the mass function is $m = m_0 r$ with $\Delta_0 = m_0/(4\pi\sqrt{1-2m_0})$, producing energy density $\rho_\Delta = m_0/(4\pi r^2)$ and potential $\Phi \propto \ln r$, exactly the Newtonian profile behind flat rotation curves. In the Hamiltonian formulation, the same frozen-in $\Delta$ becomes a central charge in the Dirac algebra, altering the Poisson bracket $\{H_i,H\}$ and creating second-class constraints whose solution is the clipping (Dirac bracket) procedure.

What would settle it

Measure the orbit of a visible star around a compact dark companion of known mass: the model predicts $\omega^2 a_1^3 = m_2$ regardless of the visible mass $m_1$, whereas standard conserved Newtonian gravity gives $\omega^2 a_1^3 = m_2^3/(m_1+m_2)^2$; observing the standard law would rule out $\Delta$ matter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that galaxies' dark-matter halos may be the local imprint of a broken preferred frame: a non-dynamical, non-conserved source $T_{\mu\nu}^{\Delta} = \Delta(x)\sqrt{h}\,n_\mu n_\nu$ painted on a preferred foliation. Since this source violates $\nabla_\mu T^{\mu\nu}=0$, it cannot be coupled to gravity through the unmodified Einstein equations, whose Bianchi identities would force a contradiction. The paper proposes to 'clip' the Einstein equations with a projector $P^{\alpha\beta}_{\mu\nu}$ that removes enough components (here, the angular equations in spherical symmetry) to make the system consistent. The clipped equations can be refilled by Stueckelberg stresses, but those stresses are non-local and depend on all other matter, which the paper takes as the signature of genuine symmetry breakdown. For constant $\Delta$, the mass function becomes $m=m_0 r$, giving $\rho_\Delta = m_0/(4\pi r^2)$ and potential $\Phi = \frac{m_0}{1-2m_0}\ln(r/r_c)$, hence flat rotation curves, both with and without a central black hole; in the Hamiltonian picture $\Delta$ appears as a central charge in the Dirac hypersurface-deformation algebra, with clipping realized as a Dirac bracket.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a frozen-in, non-dynamical quantity associated with a preferred frame really exists in galaxies and is nonzero, and that deleting some Einstein equations is a legitimate way to couple a non-conserved source to gravity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a constant $\Delta$ is present in a galaxy, the resulting halo has $\rho \propto r^{-2}$ and $\Phi \propto \ln r$, so rotation curves are flat without any self-gravitating dark-matter particle.
  • Because $\Delta$ feels no gravitational force, such halos are rigid and cannot be reshaped or dragged by baryonic tides, distinguishing them from ordinary collisionless dark matter in merging or barred systems.
  • In a binary with a compact dark companion made of $\Delta$ matter, the orbital frequency obeys $\omega^2 a_1^3 = m_2$ independent of the visible mass $m_1$, a direct violation of the conserved Kepler law that could be searched for in observations.
  • Beyond the Newtonian limit, PPN parameters become position-dependent and configuration-dependent; lensing and strong-gravity experiments would see effects absent in standard dark matter, including a diverging Stueckelberg pressure at a black-hole horizon in the refilled picture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not developed in the paper, would be to generate $\Delta$ dynamically from a phase transition or a past epoch of Hamiltonian-constraint violation; as stated, $\Delta$ is an input and the theory does not predict where or when dark matter appears.
  • The clipping mechanism is broader than dark matter: any non-conserved effective source, such as a vacuum-energy fluctuation, could be coupled to gravity the same way, with Stueckelberg stresses performing the conservation bookkeeping.
  • Since the critical halo profile coincides with the singular isothermal sphere, rotation-curve data alone cannot distinguish this model from standard dark matter; the decisive observations would be dynamical, such as the absence of halo response to baryonic tides, rather than photometric.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a gravitational framework in which a non-dynamical, non-conserved source Δ(x) on a preferred foliation—'painted-on' dark matter—couples to gravity by clipping some Einstein equations. It develops the Newtonian and post-Newtonian picture, defines transverse and radial clippers, solves the transverse-clipper spherically symmetric system (34)-(36), exhibits a critical halo with ρΔ = m0/(4πr²) and Φ = m0/(1-2m0) ln(r/r_c) giving flat rotation curves, extends to a black-hole-plus-halo solution, computes Stueckelberg refillings, and sketches a Hamiltonian picture in which Δ appears as a central charge in the Dirac algebra.

Significance. If the construction were established, this would be an original route to a permanent breakdown of diffeomorphism invariance and a qualitatively new explanation of galactic dark matter. The paper's explicit acknowledgment of its limitations is a strength: Section VIII concedes that all constraints can be evaded by setting Δ = 0, and Section IX C concedes that the Dirac-bracket derivation is left to future work. The spherical calculations are internally consistent and the Stueckelberg stress computations are explicit. However, because the flat rotation curve is an input (Eq. 41) rather than an output, and the clipper choice is underdetermined, the significance as a dark-matter explanation is currently more conceptual than predictive.

major comments (3)
  1. [IX C] The central consistency claim is not established. Section IX C states that the Dirac-bracket derivation of the clipped canonical variables is left to future work; until that derivation (or an action principle producing Eqs. (34)-(36)) is supplied, the clipping equation (9) with the transverse projector (23) is an ansatz rather than a derived gravitational theory. This is load-bearing because the system (34)-(36) is obtained by omitting the angular equation (40), and nothing in the paper shows that this omission follows from a variational or canonical procedure.
  2. [VII A and VIII] Flat rotation curves are put in by hand. Equation (41) fixes the constant Δ0, Eq. (43) then gives ρΔ ∝ r^{-2}, and the logarithmic potential (44) yields constant circular velocity. Since Δ(x) is a non-dynamical input, choosing Δ(r) can reproduce arbitrary rotation profiles, and Section VIII concedes that setting Δ = 0 evades all constraints. The words 'critical halo' and 'flat rotation curves' should therefore be framed as properties of a chosen configuration, not as predictions of the theory.
  3. [IV and Appendix A] The theory is underdetermined by the choice of clipper. The transverse clipper (23) and the radial clipper of Appendix A give the same Newtonian limit and the same flat rotation curves but different post-Newtonian and strong-field predictions (compare (45) and (A6)). Since Section IV states that the authors are 'not wedded' to any clipper and offers no selection principle, observed strong-gravity signatures cannot be attributed to the model unless the clipper ambiguity is resolved.
minor comments (4)
  1. [VII C, Eq. (52)] The notation 'dr2ρ' is ambiguous; please write '∫ dr r² ρ' (or similar) and double-check the factor 8π in the denominator, since m = 4π∫ρr²dr would suggest 2m = 8π∫ρr²dr.
  2. [VIII] The section title 'Towards phenomenology' is in tension with the first paragraph, which explains that all constraints can be evaded by setting Δ = 0; consider retitling the section to reflect its proof-of-concept status.
  3. [IV, Eq. (21)] Equation (21) would benefit from a definition of the notation N2 (presumably the lapse squared) and from a sentence explaining how this condition restricts diffeomorphisms.
  4. [X] The concluding section is candid, but phrases such as 'we do not apologize for these shortcomings' read as authorial commentary; a neutral statement of the model's scope would better serve the scientific content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Δ source is an explicit external input, and the critical-halo solution is a genuine conditional derivation rather than a disguised restatement.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is conditional and self-contained. The paper posits a non-dynamical source T^Δ_{μν}=Δ√h n_μ n_ν (Sec II), clips the Einstein equations via a projector, and then solves the resulting system (34)–(36) for a specified profile Δ(r). The constant-Δ critical halo is an exact solution of those equations: Eq. (38) with ρ_M=p_M=0 integrates to m=m0 r, Eq. (33) gives ρ_Δ=m0/(4πr²), and Eq. (39) gives Φ=(m0/(1-2m0))ln(r/r_c), whose logarithmic form yields a constant circular speed. None of these equations presupposes the rotation velocity, and Δ is not defined in terms of the halo profile; the flat curve is a derived consequence of the assumed source, not an identity. The paper repeatedly and explicitly acknowledges that Δ is a free, non-dynamical input and that Δ=0 can evade every constraint (Sec VIII), and it disclaims predictive completeness for galaxy phenomenology (Sec X). That is predictive underdetermination, not circularity. The deferred Dirac-bracket derivation in Sec IX.C is an open technical gap, and the self-citations to [5,6,12] motivate the framework but are not the load-bearing steps of the spherical solution. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model is underdetermined by design: Δ(x) is a non-dynamical input, the critical halo follows from choosing Δ constant, and the general consistency of clipping is deferred. These inputs are what the derivation actually leans on.

free parameters (4)
  • Δ(x)
    The non-dynamical density in Eq. (2); a free input that can be zero, constant, or any profile. The paper treats it as non-dynamical.
  • m0 (or Δ0) = m0 constant, Δ0 = m0/(4π√(1-2m0))
    The constant halo parameter in Eq. (41) that fixes the flat rotation curve amplitude; chosen by hand.
  • r_max
    Cutoff radius for the halo, required to match to the Schwarzschild exterior (Sec VII A).
  • r0, M = r0 > 2M
    Inner radius and black hole mass in the black-hole-plus-halo solution (Sec VII B, Eqs. (46)-(47)).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Normal matter satisfies local energy-momentum conservation, ∇_μ T_M^{μν}=0
    Imposed as a postulate in Eq. (1) so that the violation is confined to the painted-on component.
  • domain assumption There exists a preferred foliation Σ_t with normal n^μ, not necessarily geodesic
    The entire framework is built on this foliation; the deviant source is painted on it (Sec II).
  • ad hoc to paper The deviant source has the form T^Δ_{μν}=Δ(x)√h n_μ n_ν with non-dynamical Δ
    This form is chosen to match legacy Hamiltonian-constraint violations and to be 'painted-on' (Eq. 2).
  • ad hoc to paper Clipping a subset of Einstein equations with a projector P yields a consistent theory
    The paper explores several projectors (transverse, radial) but does not prove general consistency; the Dirac-bracket version is deferred to future work (Secs III, IV, IX).
  • ad hoc to paper Δ can be taken constant in regions to form a critical halo
    The flat rotation curve result relies on this choice, which is a free input (Sec VII A).
  • standard math Bianchi identities and ADM decomposition are applied as in standard general relativity
    The starting point is general relativity; the modifications are explicit departures from it.
invented entities (1)
  • Painted-on dark matter Δ(x)
    purpose: A non-dynamical source that acts as gravitational mass attracting normal matter but itself feels no gravity; the relic of permanently broken diffeomorphism invariance.
    The entity has no independent falsifiable handle: the model explicitly permits setting Δ=0 to evade all tests, and there is no dynamical mechanism generating a nonzero Δ. Its only signatures appear if Δ is already nonzero by hand.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Attracting without being attracted: Dark Matter as an aether wind." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3Y2CK4LW

@misc{pith2026250504544,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Attracting without being attracted: Dark Matter as an aether wind},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3Y2CK4LW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04544}
}
read the original abstract

We explore the possibility that part of what we call dark matter may be the mark of a preferred frame, revealing a breakdown of diffeomorphism invariance. In the non-relativistic limit this appears as a deviant matter source capable of attracting normal matter, but not feeling the attraction from other forms of matter or from itself. While this implies a violation of momentum conservation, no logical inconsistencies arise in this deviant ``Newtonian'' limit. In contrast, due to Bianchi identities, the relativistic theory must undergo core change, and we discuss a modification of Einstein's gravity capable of coupling a non-conserved source to gravity. It results from fixing some of the spatial components of the metric, thereby constraining the possible diffeomorphisms and clipping some of the equations. Bianchi identities can always be used to refill the equations, but the effective Stueckelberg stresses are so outlandish that this defines symmetry breakdown and violations of local energy-momentum conservation. We work out spherically symmetric solutions with static halos and flat rotation curves, with and without a central black hole. The model has the drawback that it can evade experimental constraints simply by setting to zero the local density of deviant matter (which is a non-dynamic input). Its presence, in contrast, would leave inimitable signatures. We briefly discuss the Hamiltonian formulation of these models, where such dark matter appears as a central charge in the Poisson bracket of the Hamiltonian and the momentum.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158-1161 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1158

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.1158 2000

  2. [2]

    P. M. W. Kalberla 2003 ApJ 588 805

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Horava, Phys

    P. Horava, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084008 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084008 [arXiv:0901.3775 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    Mukohyama, Phys

    S. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. D 80, 064005 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.064005 [arXiv:0905.3563 [hep- th]]

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Magueijo, Phys

    J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.12, 124026 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.124026 [arXiv:2404.15809 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Magueijo, Phys

    J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.8, 084050 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.084050 [arXiv:2406.17428 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Relaxation of first-class constraints and the quantization of gauge theories: from "matter without matter" to the reappearance of time in quantum gravity

    R. Casadio, L. Chataignier, A. Y. Kamen- shchik, F. G. Pedro, A. Tronconi and G. Venturi, [arXiv:2402.12437 [gr-qc]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  8. [8]

    A. O. Barvinsky and A. Y. Kamenshchik, Phys. Lett. B 774, 59-63 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.045 [arXiv:1705.09470 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Del Grosso, D

    L. Del Grosso, D. E. Kaplan, T. Melia, V. Poulin, S. Ra- jendran and T. L. Smith, [arXiv:2405.06374 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    D. E. Kaplan, T. Melia and S. Rajendran, [arXiv:2305.01798 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    A. H. Chamseddine and V. Mukhanov, JHEP 11, 135 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)135 [arXiv:1308.5410 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Magueijo, Phys

    J. Magueijo, Phys. Lett. B 858, 139001 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139001 [arXiv:2312.07597 [hep-th]]

    2024

  5. [13]

    The cosmological con- stant and general covariance,

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, “The cosmological con- stant and general covariance,” Phys. Lett. B 222 (1989), 195–199

    1989

  6. [14]

    Does an unspecified cosmological con- stant solve the problem of time in quantum gravity?,

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D40, 1048 (1989); K. V. Kuchaˇ r, “Does an unspecified cosmological con- stant solve the problem of time in quantum gravity?,” Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991), 3332–3344

    1989

  7. [15]

    Quantization of unimodular gravity and the cosmological constant problems,

    L. Smolin, “Quantization of unimodular gravity and the cosmological constant problems,” Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009), 084003, arXive: 0904.4841

    2009 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Instantons and unitarity in quantum cosmology with fixed four- volume,

    A. Daughton, J. Louko, and R. D. Sorkin, “Instantons and unitarity in quantum cosmology with fixed four- volume,” Phys. Rev. D 58, 084008 (1998)

    1998

  9. [17]

    Initial condi- tions and unitarity in unimodular quantum cosmology,

    A. Daughton, J. Louko, and R. D. Sorkin, “Initial condi- tions and unitarity in unimodular quantum cosmology,” [gr-qc/9305016]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Role of time in the sum-over-histories framework for gravity,

    R. D. Sorkin, “Role of time in the sum-over-histories framework for gravity,” Int J Theor Phys 33, 523–534 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00670514

    1994 doi

  11. [19]

    Forks in the road, on the way to quan- tum gravity,

    R. D. Sorkin, “Forks in the road, on the way to quan- tum gravity,” Int J Theor Phys 36, 2759–2781 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435709

    1997 doi

  12. [20]

    Bombelli, W

    L. Bombelli, W. E. Couch and R. J. Torrence, Phys. Rev. D 44, 2589-2592 (1991) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.44.2589

    1991 doi

  13. [21]

    Smolin, Phys

    L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. D 84, 044047 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.044047 [arXiv:1008.1759 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Padilla and I

    A. Padilla and I. D. Saltas, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.11, 561 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3767-0 12 [arXiv:1409.3573 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ann 98, 566 (1928)

    K.O.Friedrichs, Math. Ann 98, 566 (1928)

    1928

  16. [24]

    Magueijo, Phys

    J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.4, 044034 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.044034 [arXiv:2310.11929 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. D. Barrow, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, L79-L82 (2004) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/11/L03 [arXiv:gr-qc/0403084 [gr-qc]]

    2004 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Magueijo, Phys

    J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.10, 103514 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103514 [arXiv:2306.08390 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Will, Ap

    C. Will, Ap. J. Letts. 393, L59 (1992)

    1992

  20. [28]

    Misner, K

    C. Misner, K. Thorne and J.A.Wheeler, Gravitation, W. H. Freeman, 1973

    1973

  21. [29]

    Blanchet and C

    L. Blanchet and C. Skordis, JCAP 11, 040 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/040 [arXiv:2404.06584 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Introduction to Hamiltonian formulation of gen- eral relativity and homogeneous cosmologies,

    R. Jha, “Introduction to Hamiltonian formulation of gen- eral relativity and homogeneous cosmologies,” SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 73, 1 (2023); [arXiv:2204.03537 [gr- qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    N. T. Bishop, P. J. van der Walt and M. Naidoo, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.8, 084018 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.084018 [arXiv:2206.15103 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Amelino-Camelia, Int

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11, 35- 60 (2002) doi:10.1142/S0218271802001330 [arXiv:gr- qc/0012051 [gr-qc]]

    2002

  25. [33]

    Magueijo and L

    J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 190403 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.190403 [arXiv:hep- th/0112090 [hep-th]]

    2002

  26. [34]

    Magueijo and L

    J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 1725- 1736 (2004) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/7/001 [arXiv:gr- qc/0305055 [gr-qc]]

    2004

  27. [35]

    Lectures on Quantum Mechanics

    P. Dirac, “Lectures on Quantum Mechanics”, Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University Press, New York, 1964

    1964

  28. [36]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Can. J. Math. 2, 129-148 (1950)

    1950

  29. [37]

    Modern canonical quantum general relativity

    T. Thiemann, “Modern canonical quantum general relativity”, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, CUP, Cambridge, 2008

    2008

  30. [38]

    C. J. Isham, NATO Sci. Ser. C 409, 157-287 (1993) [arXiv:gr-qc/9210011 [gr-qc]]

    1993 arXiv

  31. [39]

    P. M. Bassani, J. Magueijo and S. Mukohyama, [arXiv:2408.03793 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Maskawa and H

    T. Maskawa and H. Nakajima, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 56:1295–1309, 1976

    1976

Pith tools

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