Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Exploring the Effects of Level of Control in the Initialization of Shared Whiteboarding Sessions in Collaborative Augmented Reality

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Users prefer manual control over shared whiteboard placement in collaborative AR, even when it adds setup work.

desk verdict A worthwhile first study of shared-whiteboard initialization in collaborative AR, but the headline claim overreaches its own statistics and the 'automatic' condition is hand-picked rather than algorithmic. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00908 v1 pith:DU2UM7TR submitted 2025-02-02 cs.HC

Logan Lane , Jerald Thomas , Alexander Giovannelli , Ibrahim Tahmid , Doug Bowman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords sharedwhiteboardcollaborativeaugmentedrealityinitializationlevelofcontrolC-SAWaffinitydiagramminguserpreferencevirtualsimulation
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 asks whether letting users control how a shared whiteboard is placed in a collaborative augmented reality session matters for the experience of collaboration. The authors compare three initialization techniques: users draw and negotiate the whiteboard themselves (MANUAL), choose among three system-suggested options (DISCRETE CHOICE), or accept a system-generated whiteboard with no input (AUTOMATIC), in a simulated-AR study inside virtual reality. They find that the majority of participants preferred having direct control over the whiteboard's size, shape, and location, even though MANUAL initialization took longer and induced higher workload. The results also suggest that an automatic system could be acceptable if its placement choices were intelligent enough to match user expectations.

What carries the argument

The study's central object is the three-level control design: MANUAL (parallel drawing and overlap negotiation), DISCRETE CHOICE (three C-SAW suggestions), and AUTOMATIC (a single C-SAW placement with no interaction). C-SAW (Collaborative Surface Algorithm for Whiteboarding) is a set of heuristics — reachability, avoidance of important objects, placement in open wall space, minimum usable size, and clear viewing space — for choosing candidate whiteboard placements. The mechanism that carries the argument is a within-subjects user study in which 18 pairs of participants completed an affinity diagramming task after each initialization method, with preference rankings, initialization time, NASA-TLX workload, UEQ, SUS, and interview responses as evidence.

What would settle it

Implement a real automatic whiteboard placement algorithm that scans both environments and applies the C-SAW heuristics computationally, run the same paired comparison, and check whether AUTOMATIC's satisfaction and preference rankings remain close to MANUAL's; if AUTOMATIC scores drop when placements are generated by the algorithm rather than hand-selected, the paper's conclusion about automatic acceptability would not generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that during the initialization of a shared whiteboarding session in collaborative AR, users overall prefer to have explicit control over where and how the shared surface is placed, and this preference survives the added workload of manual setup. In the study, half of the 36 participants ranked the MANUAL technique as their favorite, and interview comments emphasized the value of tailoring whiteboard dimensions to the task, such as making a wide, short board for a chronological timeline. At the same time, the statistical test found no significant difference in technique rankings, and a large number of participants found the MANUAL workflow unintuitive, with an average of ten whiteboard drafts per pair. The paper concludes that collaborators want control, but the initialization design needs to be more efficient and understandable, and that AUTOMATIC placement is acceptable when the underlying placement logic is good.

Load-bearing premise

The AUTOMATIC condition was not produced by a real algorithm: a human researcher picked the whiteboard placements by hand using the C-SAW heuristics, so the results assume those hand-picked placements represent what an actual automatic system would do.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Collaborative AR systems should offer users a way to manually adjust or override automatically placed shared surfaces when a session starts.
  • Automatic initial placement is acceptable when the placement logic is intelligent enough to avoid occlusions and match user expectations, so effort should go into improving automatic placement rather than removing it.
  • Because whiteboard dimensions were tailored to task content, initialization systems should consider the task or dataset when proposing whiteboard shapes.
  • A hybrid initialization technique that offers an automatic or suggested starting board plus manual override would combine the speed of AUTOMATIC with the control users preferred.
  • Keeping collaborators aware of each other's whiteboard dimensions during manual setup could reduce negotiation effort and the number of redraws.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The preference for control may generalize beyond whiteboards to other auto-placed shared AR anchors such as virtual screens, volumes, or furniture, since the underlying issue is users wanting final say over virtual content in their physical space.
  • The task-dependence observed here suggests a testable extension: an automatic system that infers whiteboard dimensions from task structure or data volume might close much of the gap between AUTOMATIC and MANUAL preference.
  • Because the study simulated AR in VR, a real-AR replication with physical occlusions, furniture, and lighting could shift results, as the authors themselves flag.
  • A direct replication with a larger sample could test whether the observed preference plurality becomes statistically significant, since the chi-square test in this study did not reach significance.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper investigates how the level of user control during the initialization of a shared whiteboard in collaborative AR affects the collaboration experience. Through a within-subjects VR study (36 participants in 18 dyads), the authors compare three initialization techniques: MANUAL (users draw and negotiate a shared whiteboard), DISCRETE CHOICE (users select from three system-generated suggestions), and AUTOMATIC (system provides a whiteboard with no user input). Dependent measures include preference rankings, NASA-TLX, UEQ, SUS (for MANUAL and DISCRETE CHOICE only), initialization time, whiteboard characteristics, and post-study interviews. The authors report that while there were no statistically significant differences in preference rankings, qualitative comments suggested that participants valued control over size, shape, and location, and the paper concludes that users preferred having direct control. The AUTOMATIC condition was operationalized by having a human researcher select whiteboard placements according to the proposed C-SAW heuristics, rather than by an implemented algorithm.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuinely under-explored problem—the initialization of shared surfaces in remote AR collaboration—and contributes a novel comparison of three control levels. The study design is generally careful: counterbalanced within-subjects assignment, varied virtual environments, realistic dyadic collaboration tasks, and both quantitative and qualitative measures. The authors are also transparent about many limitations, including the VR simulation, the absence of digital whiteboard affordances, and specific technical issues in the MANUAL condition. If the central claim about user preference for control were properly supported, the work would offer concrete design guidance for future AR collaboration systems. However, as reported, the quantitative data do not support the abstract's and conclusion's claims of a majority preference for direct control, and the AUTOMATIC condition's reliance on human-picked placements weakens the internal validity of the level-of-control manipulation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section 5.1, Section 8] The abstract and Section 8 claim that 'the majority of participants preferred to have direct control' and that participants 'overall preferred having control over the size, shape, and location of whiteboards.' Section 5.1 reports that 18 of 36 participants ranked MANUAL first, 8 ranked DISCRETE CHOICE first, and 10 ranked AUTOMATIC first, with a chi-square test showing no significant difference (p = 0.12). Eighteen out of 36 is exactly half, not a majority, and the non-significant test does not support a preference ordering among the conditions. This is a load-bearing overstatement of the study's central finding.
  2. [Sections 3.2 and 3.3] The AUTOMATIC condition was not produced by an implemented algorithm; rather, a human researcher manually selected whiteboard sizes and locations following the C-SAW heuristics. This confounds 'level of control' with 'placement quality.' Because the researcher's placements were idiosyncratic and, as Section 6.1 documents, sometimes partially occluded by furniture, participants' relative dissatisfaction with AUTOMATIC may reflect these specific hand-picked placements rather than automation per se. The paper's own discussion concedes that users liked AUTOMATIC when the algorithm 'worked well' (Section 6.1). Without an implemented or systematically varied automatic placement generator, the independent variable is not cleanly operationalized, and the conclusion that users prefer manual control over automatic initialization is not securely supported.
  3. [Section 6.1] The paper states that 'the participant ranking data, as well as comments made to us during the post study interview allow us to conclude that collaborators do prefer to have explicit control.' This inference is problematic because the ranking data show no statistically significant difference among the three techniques, and the interview comments are retrospective and may be influenced by the technical issues reported in the MANUAL condition (e.g., network failures and wall-encroachment errors, also described in Section 6.1). The qualitative evidence is suggestive and useful for generating hypotheses, but it does not by itself establish a preference for control that is independent of the specific implementation issues encountered.
  4. [Section 7] The Limitations section does not acknowledge that the AUTOMATIC condition used human-selected placements rather than a reproducible algorithm. This is a significant threat to the internal validity of the comparison between automated and user-controlled initialization and should be explicitly discussed as a limitation, along with its implications for the generality of the results to real-world AR systems that would run an actual C-SAW implementation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1] The test statistic is reported as 'F(4) = 7.33' for a chi-square test; it should be reported as a chi-square statistic (e.g., χ²(4) = 7.33) to avoid confusion with an F-test.
  2. [Section 6.1] The text references 'as described in Section 5.3' when discussing whiteboard sizes for different datasets, but the relevant results are in Section 5.4.
  3. [Abstract and Section 8] The word 'majority' is used to describe the preference result, but 18 out of 36 is exactly half (a plurality, not a majority); consider rephrasing to 'half' or 'a plurality' to match the reported numbers.
  4. [Section 3.2] The C-SAW heuristics are stated as a list, but Figure 3, which illustrates C-SAW applied to two environments, is not referenced in the text of Section 3.2; adding an explicit callout would help readers connect the heuristics to the example.
  5. [Section 4.2] The SUS questionnaire was not administered for the AUTOMATIC condition; the paper states this but does not provide a rationale. A brief justification (e.g., no user interaction to rate) would be useful for readers evaluating the completeness of the usability measures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical user study whose conclusions rest on participant rankings, questionnaires, and interviews, not on a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

This paper makes no formal derivation or first-principles prediction. Its central claim—that participants overall preferred having control over whiteboard size, shape, and location—is supported by post-study preference rankings, NASA-TLX, UEQ, SUS, and interview quotes. Hypotheses H1–H3 are empirical predictions tested against collected data, not mathematical consequences of the study design. The C-SAW heuristics are explicitly stated assumptions used to hand-generate whiteboard suggestions in the AUTOMATIC and DISCRETE CHOICE conditions; the paper acknowledges that C-SAW was not implemented as an autonomous algorithm. That is a validity or generalizability limitation, not a circularity: the independent variable (level of control) is manipulated directly, and the measured outcomes are not defined in terms of the heuristic rules. There is no fitted parameter later relabeled as a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation, and no renaming of a known result as organization. The skeptic's concern about hand-picked placements confounding automation with placement quality is a legitimate threat to construct validity, but it does not make the reasoning circular under the definitions used here. The analysis therefore finds no significant circularity, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical findings rest on the assumption that the VR simulation stands in for AR, that the single task type is representative, and that the hand-picked C-SAW placements represent what an automated system would produce. The first two are acknowledged limitations; the third is the load-bearing premise for the comparison between conditions.

free parameters (1)
  • AUTOMATIC whiteboard placements = Hand-selected by a non-affiliated researcher for each environment
    The AUTOMATIC and DISCRETE CHOICE conditions depend on specific whiteboard suggestions that were hand-picked using C-SAW heuristics; these choices are not generated by an implemented algorithm and vary by human judgment, directly influencing preference results.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption VR simulation adequately represents AR collaboration for the purposes of this study
    The authors simulated AR in VR to avoid limitations of current AR systems; results may differ in real AR, as acknowledged in Section 7.
  • domain assumption Affinity diagramming task is a representative collaborative shared-surface task
    Only one task type was tested; conclusions may not generalize to presentation, annotation, or sketching tasks (Section 7).
  • ad hoc to paper C-SAW heuristics are reasonable rules for whiteboard placement
    The five rules in Section 3.2 were developed by the authors and were not independently validated; the automatic placements were based on human application of these rules.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the Effects of Level of Control in the Initialization of Shared Whiteboarding Sessions in Collaborative Augmented Reality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DU2UM7TR

@misc{pith2026250200908,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the Effects of Level of Control in the Initialization of Shared Whiteboarding Sessions in Collaborative Augmented Reality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DU2UM7TR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00908}
}
read the original abstract

Augmented Reality (AR) collaboration can benefit from a shared 2D surface, such as a whiteboard. However, many features of each collaborators physical environment must be considered in order to determine the best placement and shape of the shared surface. We explored the effects of three methods for beginning a collaborative whiteboarding session with varying levels of user control: MANUAL, DISCRETE CHOICE, and AUTOMATIC by conducting a simulated AR study within Virtual Reality (VR). In the MANUAL method, users draw their own surfaces directly in the environment until they agree on the placement; in the DISCRETE CHOICE method, the system provides three options for whiteboard size and location; and in the AUTOMATIC method, the system automatically creates a whiteboard that fits within each collaborators environment. We evaluate these three conditions in a study in which two collaborators used each method to begin collaboration sessions. After establishing a session, the users worked together to complete an affinity diagramming task using the shared whiteboard. We found that the majority of participants preferred to have direct control during the initialization of a new collaboration session, despite the additional workload induced by the Manual method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00908 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The DISCRETE CHOICE technique shown in the Office environment. Users can pick from three shared whiteboard suggestions (Labeled 1, 2, and 3). ABSTRACT Augmented Reality (AR) collaboration can benefit from a shared 2D surface, such as a whiteboard. However, many features of each collaborator’s physical environment must be considered in order to determine the best placement and shape of the shared surface. We explored… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The process that users follow in the MANUAL condition. A.) User 1 and User 2 each create a whiteboard in their physical environment. B.) Users 1 and 2 are shown the “Overlap” (Represented as the green outline) between their two whiteboards. C.) User 1 alters the size of their whiteboard. The overlap is updated accordingly. D.) Both users confirm the whiteboard and begin collaborating with the same shared whiteboard.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. User 1 pointing their laser pointer at the whiteboard in their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: An example of C-SAW (Specifically, C-SAW working with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An affinity diagramming task in progress. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Participant rankings of each of the initialization techniques [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The whiteboard suggestions selected by each participant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aseeri and V

    S. Aseeri and V . Interrante. The Influence of Avatar Representation on Interpersonal Communication in Virtual Social Environments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 27(5):2608– 2617, May 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3067783

    work page arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    J. Brooke. SUS - A quick and dirty usability scale

    work page

  3. [3]

    Cherubini, G

    M. Cherubini, G. Venolia, R. DeLine, and A. J. Ko. Let’s go to the whiteboard: how and why software developers use drawings. In Pro- ceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 557–566. ACM, San Jose California USA, Apr. 2007. doi: 10.1145/1240624.1240714

    work page arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    B. J. Congdon, T. Wang, and A. Steed. Merging environments for shared spaces in mixed reality. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Sym- posium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology , pp. 1–8. ACM, Tokyo Japan, Nov. 2018. doi: 10.1145/3281505.3281544

    work page arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    B. Ens, J. Lanir, A. Tang, S. Bateman, G. Lee, T. Piumsomboon, and M. Billinghurst. Revisiting collaboration through mixed reality: The evolution of groupware. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 131:81–98, Nov. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.011

    doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.011 2019

  6. [6]

    D. I. Fink, J. Zagermann, H. Reiterer, and H.-C. Jetter. Re-locations: Augmenting Personal and Shared Workspaces to Support Remote Col- laboration in Incongruent Spaces. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction, 6(ISS):1–30, Nov. 2022. doi: 10.1145/3567709

    work page doi:10.1145/3567709 2022

  7. [7]

    J. E. S. Grønbæk, K. Pfeuffer, E. Velloso, M. Astrup, M. I. S. Pedersen, M. Kjær, G. Leiva, and H. Gellersen. Partially Blended Realities: Aligning Dissimilar Spaces for Distributed Mixed Reality Meetings. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–16. ACM, Hamburg Germany, Apr. 2023. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3581515

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In Ad- vances in Psychology, vol. 52, pp. 139–183. Elsevier, 1988. doi: 10. 1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9

    work page 1988

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Herskovitz, Y

    J. Herskovitz, Y . F. Cheng, A. Guo, A. P. Sample, and M. Nebeling. XS- pace: An Augmented Reality Toolkit for Enabling Spatially-Aware Dis- tributed Collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(ISS):277–302, Nov. 2022. doi: 10.1145/3567721

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Huang and R

    X. Huang and R. Xiao. SurfShare: Lightweight Spatially Consis- tent Physical Surface and Virtual Replica Sharing with Head-mounted Mixed-Reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wear- able and Ubiquitous Technologies , 7(4):1–24, Dec. 2023. doi: 10. 1145/3631418

    2023

  3. [11]

    J. Kang, D. Yang, T. Kim, Y . Lee, and S.-H. Lee. Real-time Retar- geting of Deictic Motion to Virtual Avatars for Augmented Reality Telepresence. In 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 885–893. IEEE, Sydney, Australia, Oct. 2023. doi:...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Keshavarzi, A

    M. Keshavarzi, A. Y . Yang, W. Ko, and L. Caldas. Optimization and Manipulation of Contextual Mutual Spaces for Multi-User Virtual and Augmented Reality Interaction. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) , pp. 353–362, Mar. 2020. arXiv:1910.059...

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kim, J.-e

    D. Kim, J.-e. Shin, J. Lee, and W. Woo. Adjusting Relative Translation Gains According to Space Size in Redirected Walking for Mixed Re- ality Mutual Space Generation. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 653–660. IEEE, Lisboa, Portugal, Mar. 2021. doi...

    2021

  6. [14]

    S. Kim, D. Kim, J.-E. Shin, and W. Woo. Object Cluster Registration of Dissimilar Rooms Using Geometric Spatial Affordance Graph to Generate Shared Virtual Spaces. In 2024 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) , pp. 796–805. IEEE, Orlando, FL, USA, Mar. 2...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Laugwitz, T

    B. Laugwitz, T. Held, and M. Schrepp. Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire. In A. Holzinger, ed., HCI and Usability for Education and Work , vol. 5298, pp. 63–76. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008. Series Title: Lecture Notes in Com...

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    N. H. Lehment, D. Merget, and G. Rigoll. Creating automatically aligned consensus realities for AR videoconferencing. In 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) , pp. 201–206. IEEE, Munich, Germany, Sept. 2014. doi: 10.1109/ ISMAR.2014.6948428

    2014

  9. [17]

    A. Lucero. Using Affinity Diagrams to Evaluate Interactive Proto- types. In J. Abascal, S. Barbosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross, P. Palanque, and M. Winckler, eds., Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2015 , vol. 9297, pp. 231–248. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015. Seri...

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Marques, S

    B. Marques, S. Silva, J. Alves, A. Rocha, P. Dias, and B. S. Santos. Remote collaboration in maintenance contexts using augmented real- ity: insights from a participatory process. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) , 16(1):419–438, Mar

  11. [19]

    Marques, A

    B. Marques, A. Teixeira, S. Silva, J. Alves, P. Dias, and B. S. Santos. A critical analysis on remote collaboration mediated by Augmented Reality: Making a case for improved characterization and evaluation of the collaborative process. Computers & Graphics, 102:619–633, Feb

  12. [20]

    Pejsa, J

    T. Pejsa, J. Kantor, H. Benko, E. Ofek, and A. Wilson. Room2Room: Enabling Life-Size Telepresence in a Projected Augmented Reality En- vironment. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer- Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing , pp. 1716–1725. ACM, San Fran...

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    doi: 10.1016/j.cag.2021.08.006

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    D. Yang, J. Kang, T. Kim, and S.-H. Lee. Visual Guidance for User Placement in Avatar-Mediated Telepresence between Dissimilar Spaces. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , pp. 1–14,

  15. [23]

    Walny, S

    J. Walny, S. Carpendale, N. Henry Riche, G. Venolia, and P. Fawcett. Visual Thinking In Action: Visualizations As Used On White- boards. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12):2508–2517, Dec. 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2011.251

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    L. Yoon, D. Yang, J. Kim, C. Chung, and S.-H. Lee. Placement Re- targeting of Virtual Avatars to Dissimilar Indoor Environments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 28(3):1619– 1633, Mar. 2022. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2020.3018458 9

    2022

  17. [26]

    Yoon, H.-i

    B. Yoon, H.-i. Kim, G. A. Lee, M. Billinghurst, and W. Woo. The Effect of Avatar Appearance on Social Presence in an Augmented Reality Remote Collaboration. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 547–556. IEEE, Osaka, Japan, Mar. 2019. doi:...

    2019

  18. [2022]

    doi: 10.1007/s12008-021-00798-6

    doi

  19. [2024]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2024.3354256

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.