Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 13 references

Toward Uncertainty Quantification in Modern Art

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The paper claims that the seed-to-seed disagreement of a text-to-video model on modern art has a recoverable distributional shape—compact, outlier, bimodal, or diffuse—identifiable from a handful of seeds without seeing the original…

desk verdict A careful, honest first protocol for characterizing the structure of seed-to-seed uncertainty in text-to-video generation, but its headline recovery numbers come from synthetic seed sets and the transfer to real data is not yet shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04038 v1 pith:MPLPMO2N submitted 2026-08-03 cs.GR cs.MAeess.IV

Tirtho Roy , Ushashi Bhattacharjee , Showrav Kumar Saha , Sayantan Chakraborty , Koushik Howlader , Tanusree Bhattacharjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GRcs.MAeess.IV
keywords uncertaintyquantificationgenerativevideomodelmodernartanimationseed-to-seeddiversitydistributionalprofilesourceblindevaluationWan2.1semanticentropy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that when a text-to-video model animates the same modern artwork under different random seeds, the disagreement between the resulting films is structured signal, not noise: it can look compact, like a dominant reading with an outlier, like two competing modes, or like diffuse instability. It introduces a source-blind protocol that decomposes a set of seeded generations into these named structures and shows the structure is recoverable from as few as three or four seeds. On controlled seed sets, the protocol classifies seed-set topology at balanced accuracy 0.98 and isolates the outlier configuration at AUROC 1.00, where a standard dispersion scalar reaches only 0.35. The paper also separates high seed uncertainty into 97 artworks whose seeds still cover the reference and 56 whose seeds miss it, showing high diversity is not one phenomenon. Two negative results bound the claim: a full distributional profile does not beat plain pairwise dispersion at predicting semantic disagreement (cross-validated $R^2$ 0.240 vs 0.243), and source-blind uncertainty tracks interpretation, not fidelity to the hidden artwork.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the distributional profile, a suite of seven source-blind and six reference-aware estimators combined with a controlled topology-recovery experiment. For each seed set, the profile computes robust spread, outlier influence, an explicit discrete topology via the partition $\hat{C}_i = \arg\min_C S_{\text{within}}^i(C)+\lambda|C|$ over candidate shapes, multimodality, anisotropy, leave-one-seed influence, and reference coverage, with calibration constants $\tau=0.76$, $\lambda=0.50$, $h=1.07$, and a 50-dimensional PCA space fit on a held-out split. Synthetic seed sets of known geometry (compact, $3{+}1$, $2{+}2$, diffuse) provide the ground truth that shows the topology selector and outlier gap recover structure a scalar cannot; a distribution model ablation (vMF, Kent, ACG, Student $t$, kernel, mixture) then gauges how much parametric machinery four seeds can support.

What would settle it

Have human raters label each real artwork's four-seed set by the same five topology classes (compact, $3{+}1$, $2{+}2$, $2{+}1{+}1$, all-distinct) and compare the protocol's predictions to those labels; agreement near chance, or an outlier AUROC that fails to beat a scalar on real sets, would show the synthetic shapes are easier to separate than real seed distributions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the seed-to-seed variance of a text-to-video model on ambiguous modern art has a recoverable distributional shape, and that shape—not just its magnitude—can be identified from a handful of generations without ever consulting the original artwork. The paper's distributional profile names the structure of a seed set (compact, dominant-plus-outlier, bimodal, diffuse, directional) and recovers it reliably: topology balanced accuracy 0.98, outlier detection AUROC 1.00 versus 0.35 for the directional-concentration scalar. On the 250-artwork corpus, the protocol divides the high-uncertainty cases into reference-covering diversity (97 artworks) and reference-missing diversity (56), meaning the same scalar uncertainty can correspond to meaningful variation or to failure to capture the artwork. The paper is equally explicit about what structure does not buy: adding outlier, mode, and anisotropy components does not improve prediction of cross-seed semantic disagreement over a single dispersion scalar, and source-blind uncertainty is interpretive rather than reconstructive.

Load-bearing premise

The headline diagnostic numbers come from synthetic seed sets crafted to look like compact, dominant-plus-outlier, two-plus-two, and diffuse configurations, and the paper assumes real Wan2.1 seed sets on modern art vary in the same way; the 250 real artworks have no ground-truth topology label, so nothing in the paper directly verifies that transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A curator can route a high-uncertainty artwork to different actions—accept, discard a seed, present alternatives, or abstain—based on whether the protocol names the disagreement compact, outlier, bimodal, or diffuse.
  • Because three-of-four and even two-of-four seed subsets reproduce the full four-seed rankings at Spearman 1.00 for the simple estimators, future studies can run the protocol with fewer generations and save compute.
  • The negative RQ6 result implies that for predicting semantic disagreement, adding structural components to a scalar does not help; a practitioner should not expect a richer scalar to predict meaning better than pairwise dispersion.
  • Source-blind uncertainty measures interpretation, not reference fidelity, so any deployment that needs to know whether seeds still captured the original artwork must use the reference-aware evaluation branch rather than the deployable source-blind scores.
  • The simple estimators stay stable across four encoders (pairwise and DCU agree at mean Spearman 0.80), while the richer structural components are fragile, so the protocol's portable parts are the dispersion and coverage estimators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the controlled synthetic shapes transfer to real generation noise, the same protocol could serve as a cheap runtime quality gate for any text-to-video model animating stylistically ambiguous input, with no access to the original artwork.
  • Inference: The two-axis split suggests a concrete failure-mode test: a model whose high-uncertainty outputs are mostly reference-missing should be treated as unreliable for art animation, whereas a model whose high-uncertainty outputs are mostly reference-covering is producing legitimate alternative readings.
  • Inference: Running the identical protocol on a second text-to-video model or on a natural-image corpus would require re-estimating the calibration constants ($\lambda$, $h$, $\tau$) and would reveal whether the 0.98 topology accuracy is tied to Wan2.1's particular seed behavior or is a general property of seeded video generation.
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. The manuscript introduces a protocol for quantifying the structure, rather than only the magnitude, of seed-to-seed variation in text-to-video generation when rendering modern art. The authors construct a corpus of 250 artworks, each animated under four seeds by Wan2.1 14B and embedded with four encoders, and they propose seven source-blind and six reference-aware estimators, a distributional profile with an explicit topology selector, and an artwork-level resampling protocol. Eight research questions are investigated; the headline results are that the topology selector recovers controlled synthetic geometries with balanced accuracy 0.98, that an outlier-gap component detects the 3+1 configuration at AUROC 1.00 where a scalar reaches 0.35, and that high-uncertainty artworks split into reference-covering (n=97) and reference-missing (n=56) groups. The paper also reports two negative results: the full distributional profile does not outperform pairwise dispersion for predicting semantic disagreement, and source-blind uncertainty does not track reference fidelity.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would be a useful contribution to generative-media uncertainty quantification: it provides a reusable protocol, a purpose-built corpus, and honest negative results. The statistical hygiene is a clear strength—artwork-level bootstrap, permutation p-values, Benjamini-Hochberg correction, a calibration/validation/test split, and explicit reporting of failures such as the 2+2 multimodality AUROC 0.49 are all present. However, the headline diagnostic numbers are produced on controlled synthetic seed sets, and the paper's own cross-encoder analysis (Table 5) shows that the structural components driving those headline results are the least stable on real data. The significance is therefore prospective: the transfer from synthetic geometry to real Wan2.1 seed distributions is the load-bearing assumption, and it is not yet supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Table 1] The controlled recovery experiment is the sole evidence for the headline topology balanced accuracy (0.98) and outlier AUROC (1.00), but the manuscript never describes how the 'controlled seed sets of known geometry' were generated: the parametric families, separation parameters, sample sizes, and whether the same four-encoder embedding pipeline was used are all omitted. Without these details, the reported numbers may largely reflect the topology selector and outlier-gap component re-identifying the very families they were designed to detect, rather than recovery on real Wan2.1 seed distributions. Please provide the full generation procedure and add a real-data validation, for example with human-annotated or independently derived topology labels on a sample of the 250 artworks.
  2. [§5.6, Table 5; Abstract] The abstract's claim that the protocol is reliable 'from three seeds and across encoders' is not supported for the structural components. Table 4 shows 3-of-4 seed reliability only for simple dispersion estimators, while Table 5 reports mean cross-encoder Spearman values of 0.23 for outlier gap and 0.35 for mode ratio, with minima of 0.17 and 0.22. Because the real corpus has no topology ground truth and RQ4/RQ5 validate median splits rather than predicted topology, the transfer from controlled synthetic geometry to real four-seed, cross-encoder settings is the central unsupported step. Please either provide such a transfer test or restrict the reliability claims in the abstract and conclusions to the simple estimators.
  3. [§3, 'Distribution model ablation'] The protocol describes a six-model ablation (vMF, Kent, ACG, Student t, kernel, mixture) and states it gauges how much parametric machinery four seeds can support, but no results from this ablation are reported anywhere in Section 5. This is a missing component of a stated protocol element. Please report the ablation or remove it from the protocol description.
  4. [§5.4, Table 3] The two-axis taxonomy separating reference-covering from reference-missing diversity is based on median splits of uncertainty and coverage, but the manuscript does not report a statistical test establishing that the two axes are independent or that the quadrant proportions differ from chance beyond the descriptive counts. Since the separation of high-uncertainty artworks into n=97 and n=56 is one of the abstract's claims, please add a permutation or bootstrap test for the association between the uncertainty and coverage axes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The header 'CVR 2' should be written as 'CV R²' or 'CV R2' to avoid confusion with a metric named CVR.
  2. [§5.2] The anisotropy response values (ρ = −0.14 and 0.41 under directional and isotropic perturbation) are reported without stating the unit of correlation; please clarify whether these are computed over perturbation levels, seed sets, or artworks, and report confidence intervals.
  3. [§5.7] The temporal decomposition values (=0.016, 0.289, 0.144) are introduced without an equation or explicit definitions of 'within video instability,' 'across seed same timestep disagreement,' and 'trajectory disagreement'; please define these formally or point to a supplement.
  4. [Abstract and §3] The term 'source blind' is used in the abstract before it is defined; a one-sentence definition in the abstract would improve readability.
  5. [§4] The novelty claims 'first corpus' and 'first systematic study' should be checked against concurrent work, given that the related-work section already cites several 2025–2026 preprints in closely related areas.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline diagnostic numbers are partly self-definitional: the topology selector is the argmin over the same partition shapes used as synthetic labels, and the outlier gap is the definition of the 3+1 configuration it detects.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, Distributional profile; Section 5.2, RQ2 (Table 1)]
    "an explicit topology obtained by selecting the seed partition Ĉ_i = arg min_C S_within_i(C)+λ|C| over the candidate shapes {(4),(3+1),(2+2),(2+1+1),(1+1+1+1)} … On controlled seed sets of known geometry (compact,3+1,2+2, diffuse), the profile's topology selector attains balanced accuracy 0.98 and macro F1 0.98 (chance 0.25)."

    The synthetic 'topology' labels are exactly the candidate partition shapes that the selector is defined to minimize. The objective S_within_i(C) is the within-cluster scatter of a candidate partition, and a synthetic 'compact' or '3+1' set is generated so that the planted partition has low within-cluster scatter. The selector is the argmin over those same shapes, so on well-separated synthetic data it recovers the planted shape by construction. Balanced accuracy 0.98 is therefore a self-consistency check of the optimizer, not evidence that real Wan2.1 seed sets have identifiable topology; the paper never states how the synthetic sets were generated or how separation was chosen, so the recovery could be internal consistency of the clustering objective on idealized inputs.

  2. self definitional [Section 3, Distributional profile (outlier influence); Section 5.2, RQ2 (Table 1)]
    "outlier influence(each seed's mean distance to the rest, its maximum, and the gap between the two largest) … its outlier gap component detects the3+1configuration at AUROC 1.00 where DCU reaches only 0.35."

    A '3+1 configuration' is defined as one seed whose mean distance to the other three is markedly larger than the other seeds' mean distances; the 'outlier gap' is exactly the gap between the two largest per-seed mean distances. The detector is the operational definition of the target it claims to detect. On separable synthetic 3+1 versus non-3+1 sets, the AUROC of a threshold on this gap is 1.00 by construction, because the statistic and the label are the same quantity. The comparison with DCU shows only that the scalar does not encode this definitional gap; the 1.00 adds no empirical evidence beyond the definition.

full rationale

Two controlled-recovery claims in the abstract and Section 5.2 reduce by construction. The explicit topology module is defined as the argmin of within-cluster scatter over the candidate shapes {(4),(3+1),(2+2),(2+1+1),(1+1+1+1)}; the synthetic controlled sets are labeled by those same shapes, so recovering them at 0.98 is the optimizer finding the planted partition, not an independent confirmation that real seed sets have that topology. Similarly, the outlier gap is defined as the gap between the two largest per-seed mean distances, which is exactly what makes a 3+1 configuration a 3+1 configuration; AUROC 1.00 on synthetic 3+1 versus non-3+1 sets is therefore definitional. The paper never specifies how the controlled sets were generated or how separation was chosen, so the possibility that they are well-separated draws from the same parametric families the protocol fits remains open. These two components carry the headline numbers. However, the paper also contains substantial independent content: negative results (mode ratio AUROC 0.49 on 2+2, no improvement over pairwise dispersion in RQ6), held-out real-data taxonomy (RQ4/RQ5), permutation tests, and cross-encoder analysis with honest reporting that structural components are unstable (Table 5). No load-bearing self-citation chain appears. The circularity is partial: two headline 'predictions' reduce by construction, while the overall protocol evaluation is not wholly circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on calibrated hyperparameters (lambda, h, tau, PCA rank), on the assumption that embeddings and a source-blind VLM capture interpretation differences, and on the transfer of synthetic controlled geometries to real artwork seed sets. No physical entities are introduced; the reference-covering/reference-missing taxonomy is a measured partition, not an independently evidenced entity.

free parameters (4)
  • topology penalty lambda = 0.50
    Balances within-cluster scatter against partition complexity in the topology selector; fit on the 50-work calibration split.
  • kernel bandwidth h = 1.07
    Bandwidth for kernel reference inclusion and the empirical spherical kernel; fit on the calibration split.
  • semantic threshold tau = 0.76
    Threshold used to group semantic equivalence classes for semantic entropy and annotation; fit on the calibration split.
  • PCA dimensionality = 50
    Shared PCA space used for anisotropy and the Student-t distribution model; fit on the calibration split.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Artwork-level bootstrap resampling, permutation p-values, and Benjamini-Hochberg correction are valid statistical procedures.
    Used in Section 3 to support all comparisons; standard under exchangeability assumptions.
  • domain assumption Videos from different seeds are exchangeable samples from a single per-artwork interpretation distribution.
    The whole distributional profile assumes this structure; no explicit test is given.
  • domain assumption Mean-pooled clip embeddings from the four encoders preserve semantic and interpretation differences relevant to modern art.
    All estimators operate in this embedding space; no human validation is reported.
  • domain assumption The source-blind VLM annotations of subject, setting, action, style, mood, color, and composition are a valid ground truth for cross-seed semantic disagreement.
    Section 4 introduces the annotator; no human evaluation is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper Synthetic controlled geometries (compact, 3+1, 2+2, diffuse) are representative of real multiseed structure.
    Used to report the top-line recovery results in Section 5.2; transfer to real artworks is assumed.
invented entities (1)
  • Reference-covering versus reference-missing diversity taxonomy
    purpose: Splits high seed-uncertainty artworks into cases where at least one generated seed resembles the hidden reference and cases where no seed does.
    Introduced in Section 5.4 and Table 3; relies on the paper's own reference-similarity measures and splits; no external validation or human annotation confirms the partition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward Uncertainty Quantification in Modern Art." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MPLPMO2N

@misc{pith2026260804038,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward Uncertainty Quantification in Modern Art},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MPLPMO2N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04038}
}
read the original abstract

Asked to animate the same modern artwork under different random seeds, a text to video model returns visibly different films, one reading per seed. Because modern art is ambiguous by intent, this disagreement is signal, not noise. Yet prevailing uncertainty quantification (UQ) collapses a set of generations to a dispersion scalar that says how much the seeds differ but not how: it cannot tell a compact interpretation from a dominant reading plus an outlier, two competing modes, or diffuse instability, nor whether the set still contains a rendering faithful to the original. We present the first study of the structure of generative uncertainty for modern art animation, and a reusable protocol for identifying source blind multiseed uncertainty: a suite of seven source blind and six reference aware estimators; a distributional profile (robust spread, outlier influence, explicit topology, multimodality, anisotropy, leave one seed influence, reference coverage); a distribution model ablation (vMF, Kent, ACG, Student t, kernel, mixture); eight identification questions; and an artwork level statistical protocol. We build the first corpus: 250 modern artwork captions rendered by Wan2.1 14B under four seeds (1000 videos) across 4 encoders, artworks withheld from generation. As a diagnostic the protocol succeeds: it classifies seed set topology at balanced accuracy 0.98 (chance 0.25), isolates the outlier configuration at AUROC 1.00 where a scalar reaches only 0.35, and splits high uncertainty artworks into reference covering (n=97) and reference missing (n=56) diversity, reliably from three seeds and across encoders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04038 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The source blind protocol. The caption is derived from the artwork; the generator sees only the caption and produces K seeded videos whose embeddings form the interpretation distribution. The artwork bypasses generation and enters only the evaluation branch. seed 1 seed 2 seed 3 seed 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. One caption rendered under four seeds (one representative frame per seed). Each seed advances a distinct reading of the same modern artwork, so the four clips constitute four samples of the interpretation distribution the protocol characterizes. global spread (pairwise dispersion); robust spread (the median pairwise distance and a tail gap = mean − median); outlier influence (each seed’s mean distance to the rest, i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The profile separates seed set structures that a scalar cannot (a) and recovers them under control (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spearman correlation of each uncertainty component (columns) with per attribute cross seed semantic disagreement (rows) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    AnimatePainter: A Self-Supervised Rendering Framework for Reconstructing Painting Process

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17029. Ziqi Huang, Yinan He, Jiashuo Yu, Fan Zhang, et al. Vbench: Comprehensive benchmark suite for video generative models. InCVPR,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [6]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2311.17982

    doi: 10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.02060. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2311.17982. Alayt Issak, Jeba Rezwana, and Casper Harteveld. Mosaaic: Managing optimization towards shared autonomy, authority, and initiative in cocreation. InInternational Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC),

    arXiv 2024

  3. [7]

    MOSAAIC: Managing Optimization towards Shared Autonomy, Authority, and Initiative in Co-creation

    URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.11481. arXiv:2505.11481. Lorenz Kuhn, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR),

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [9]

    Every Painting Awakened: A Training-free Framework for Painting-to-Animation Generation

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23736. Aniruddha Mahapatra, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Hsin Ying Lee, Sergey Tulyakov, and Jun Yan Zhu. Text guided synthesis of eulerian cinemagraphs.ACM Transactions on Graphics (SIGGRAPH Asia),

    work page Pith review arXiv

  5. [11]

    Janet Rafner, Blanka Zana, Iben Have Beck Hansen, Simon Ceh, Jacob Sherson, Mathias Benedek, and Izabela Lebuda

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.05927. Janet Rafner, Blanka Zana, Iben Have Beck Hansen, Simon Ceh, Jacob Sherson, Mathias Benedek, and Izabela Lebuda. Agency in human AI collaboration for image generation and creative writing: Preliminary insights from think aloud protocols.Creativity Research Journal,

    arXiv

  6. [12]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10

    doi: 10.1080/10400419.2025.2587803. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1080/10400419.2025.2587803. Team Wan, Ang Wang, et al. Wan: Open and advanced large scale video generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20314,

    arXiv 2025

  7. [13]

    Yi Wang et al

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20314. Yi Wang et al. Internvid: A large scale video text dataset for multimodal understanding and generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06942,

    arXiv

  8. [14]

    Yueqi Xie, Tao Qi, Jingwei Yi, Xiyuan Yang, Ryan Whalen, Junming Huang, Qian Ding, Yu Xie, Xing Xie, and Fangzhao Wu

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06942. Yueqi Xie, Tao Qi, Jingwei Yi, Xiyuan Yang, Ryan Whalen, Junming Huang, Qian Ding, Yu Xie, Xing Xie, and Fangzhao Wu. Measuring human contribution in AI assisted content generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14792,

    arXiv

Show all 13 references
  1. [15]

    Shuning Zhang, Hui Wang, and Xin Yi

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.14792. Shuning Zhang, Hui Wang, and Xin Yi. Exploring collaboration patterns and strategies in human AI cocreation through the lens of agency: A scoping review of the top tier HCI literature.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06000,

    arXiv

  2. [16]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06000. 7

  3. [2023]

    arXiv:2302.09664

    URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2302.09664. arXiv:2302.09664. Lingyu Liu, Yaxiong Wang, Li Zhu, and Zhedong Zheng. Every painting awakened: A training free framework for painting to animation generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23736,

    arXiv

  4. [2025]

    Also NeurIPS 2025 Creative AI Track

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.13697. Also NeurIPS 2025 Creative AI Track. Sebastian Farquhar, Jannik Kossen, Lorenz Kuhn, and Yarin Gal. Detecting hallucinations in large language models using 6 semantic entropy.Nature, 630:625–630,

    2025

  5. [2026]

    Preprint; not peer reviewed

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.13264. Preprint; not peer reviewed. Vivan Doshi and Mengyuan Li. Writing in symbiosis: Mapping human creative agency in the AI era.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.13697,

Pith tools

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