Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Junctional-Fluctuation-Mediated Fluidisation of Multi-Phase Field Epithelial Monolayers

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stochastic adhesion at cell junctions fluidises a phase-field epithelial model.

desk verdict Useful and honest simulation study; the claimed non-monotonicity holds for persistence times safely below the simulation window, so the main finite-time worry doesn't land. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18987 v1 pith:YS3ZKR5J submitted 2025-08-26 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

James N. Graham , Jan Rozman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph
keywords epithelialmonolayersmulti-phasefieldmodeljunctionaladhesionfluctuationsOrnstein-UhlenbeckprocessT1transitionstissuefluidisationcelldiffusionhexaticorderparameter
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 random, time-varying strength of cell-cell adhesion alone can make a model epithelium behave like a fluid. The answer it argues is yes: when pairwise adhesion strengths between neighbouring cells fluctuate as Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes, the tissue undergoes repeated T1 neighbour exchanges and cells move diffusively, whereas constant adhesion leaves the layer jammed in a hexagonal solid. The central quantitative claim is that the effective diffusion coefficient rises with the fluctuation amplitude but depends non-monotonically on the fluctuation persistence time: there is an optimal persistence time at which cell diffusion is fastest. This matters because it tests, in a phase-field representation of cells, a fluidisation mechanism previously established only in vertex models, and it offers a route to tune tissue rheology through junctional noise alone.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pairwise adhesion coefficient omega_ij(t) appearing in the adhesion free energy F_adh = sum omega_ij lambda integral grad[(phi_i)^2] dot grad[(phi_j)^2]. Each omega_ij evolves by d omega_ij/dt = -omega_ij/tau_omega + xi_ij(t), with Gaussian white noise of variance 2 sigma_omega^2/tau_omega; this is the junctional-fluctuation mechanism, carried over from vertex models. The work it does: transiently strong adhesion pins neighbours together and transiently negative adhesion pushes them apart, driving the fourfold-vertex and T1 intercalation events that let cells exchange neighbours and diffuse. Its functional derivative is proportional to phi_i, a modification of earli

What would settle it

Repeat the parameter scan with independent realisations and run times several times longer than tau_omega, for example T > 10 tau_omega at tau_omega = 1e5. If the effective diffusion coefficient stops being non-monotonic in tau_omega, or the mean-square displacement becomes subdiffusive on the longer window, the claimed fluidisation would be a finite-time artefact. Alternatively, directly measuring the rate of T1 barrier crossings as a function of tau_omega should show a peak at finite tau_omega if the separation-of-timescales explanation is right.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that a multi-phase field model of an epithelial monolayer is fluidised by Ornstein-Uhlenbeck fluctuations of the pairwise adhesion energies omega_ij between neighbouring cells. With small fluctuation amplitude the tissue stays solid and hexagonal with no neighbour exchanges; with large amplitude cells undergo T1 intercalations, neighbour turnover, linear mean-square displacement, and loss of hexatic order. Scanning the persistence time tau_omega and variance sigma_omega^2, the authors find that the effective diffusion coefficient and neighbour-change rate are non-monotonic functions of tau_omega, with an intermediate persistence time maximising mobility, in agreement

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central non-monotonic result is only as strong as its assertion that the measured diffusion coefficient is a converged steady-state property: the simulations run for a time comparable to the largest persistence times considered, with one realisation per parameter point and no error bars, so the outcome would collapse if longer or repeated runs changed the trend.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the multi-phase field model, junctional adhesion noise alone can produce a solid-to-fluid transition; no cell-scale polarity or nematic activity is required.
  • The effective diffusion coefficient and neighbour-change frequency both peak at an intermediate adhesion persistence time, so there is an optimal correlation time of junctional turnover for tissue fluidisation.
  • The T1 events driven by fluctuating adhesions account for the diffusive mean-square displacement, ruling out solid flocking as the source of cell mobility.
  • Fluidised and solid phases can be distinguished by hexatic order |psi_6|, which drops from about 1 to about 0 as sigma_omega and tau_omega increase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the non-monotonicity is generic, junctional-noise-driven fluidisation should also appear in phase-field models with different adhesion functional forms, such as interface-length-dependent adhesion, as long as the effective barrier to T1 events is modulated on a comparable timescale.
  • The paper's single-run parameter scan leaves open whether the optimal tau_omega depends on system size, area constraint, or friction; a testable extension is to measure the peak position as these are varied.
  • In real tissues, junctional myosin turnover has a timescale; the model suggests a tissue could be fluidised or solidified by shifting only that timescale, for example through biochemical perturbation, without changing average adhesion strength.
  • Because the diffusion coefficient is extracted from MSD(T)/(4T) with T comparable to the largest tau_omega, longer-time simulations with multiple realisations would directly test whether the reported peak is steady-state behaviour rather than a slow crossover.
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 adapts the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck junctional-fluctuation mechanism, previously used in vertex models, to a multi-phase field model of an epithelial monolayer. Pairwise cell-cell adhesions ω_ij are made to fluctuate stochastically (Eq. 4d and Eq. 5), and the authors show, via a hand-tuned T1 transition (Fig. 1) and via scans of the variance σ_ω and persistence time τ_ω, that sufficiently strong fluctuations fluidize the monolayer: the MSD becomes diffusive, neighbor-change events occur at a steady rate, and hexatic order is lost (Figs. 2 and 3). The effective diffusion coefficient D_diff = MSD(T)/(4T) is reported to depend non-monotonically on τ_ω, consistent with a vertex-model result [Yamamoto et al., Soft Matter 18, 2168 (2022)]. The authors explicitly acknowledge that the total simulation time is comparable to the largest τ_ω values, and they provide supporting MSD exponent fits in the Supplemental Material.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper adds a new, physically motivated fluidization mechanism to the multi-phase field modeling toolkit, analogous to the well-established fluctuating-tension approach in vertex models. The non-monotonic dependence of D_diff on τ_ω, if robust, is an interesting generic feature worth reporting. The work is transparent: the model is fully specified, the parameter values are given, and the SI contains additional MSD data and T1 movies. The main contribution is computational, not analytical, and the authors do not overclaim beyond their simulation evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (6) and Fig. 3(a)] The central quantitative claim, the non-monotonic D_diff(τ_ω), rests on single simulations per parameter point. D_diff is defined as MSD(T)/(4T) at T=1.8×10^5, and no error bars, replicate runs, or statistical significance tests are reported. In a driven 2D tissue, MSD(T)/(4T) from one trajectory can fluctuate substantially, especially near the solid-fluid transition. Please provide at least several independent runs (different noise seeds) per parameter point, report mean ± SEM, and confirm that the non-monotonic shape survives averaging. Without this, the non-monotonicity may be a statistical fluctuation.
  2. [Section III, last paragraph; Eq. (5)] The initialization of ω_ij is not stated. If, as suggested by the text ('when a pair of cells newly come into contact their adhesion is zero'), ω_ij starts at zero, then for τ_ω=10^5 the OU process has not reached stationarity: the 3×10^4 equilibration is only 0.3 τ_ω, and the variance is still increasing during the measurement window (T=1.8 τ_ω). This can suppress rearrangements at large τ_ω and create an artificial downturn in D_diff. The SI MSD exponents show diffusive motion at τ_ω=10^5, but they do not establish steady state. Please initialize ω_ij from the stationary Gaussian distribution, and/or extend at least the large-τ_ω simulations well beyond several τ_ω to demonstrate that the downturn is not a finite-time artifact.
  3. [Eq. (4d) and Supplemental Eq. (S2)] The summation convention in Eq. (4d) is ambiguous. The sum over i and j∈N_i(t), with ω_ij=ω_ji, counts each unordered pair twice unless a 1/2 factor or an ordered restriction is explicitly stated. The Supplemental Material's functional derivative, δF_adh/δφ^(i) = -4∑ω_ij λ φ^(i) ∇²[(φ^(j))²], is consistent with this double counting. If instead the intended adhesion energy is a sum over unordered pairs, Eq. (4d) and Eq. (S2) both contain a factor-of-2 error, which would change the effective relaxation rate J0 and shift the phase boundary. Please state the convention explicitly and, if double counting is intended, note it explicitly because it changes the energy scale by a factor of 2 relative to the single-pair convention used in some previous phase-field work.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (4d)] Please clarify whether N_i(t) includes i itself; if not, the condition ω_ij=ω_ji and the restriction j∈N_i(t) are enough to define a well-defined pairwise term.
  2. [Supplemental Material, Fig. S2 caption] Minor wording: 'Exponents of a MSD(t)=αt^β fit' should be 'fits' (plural); also please state the fitting range used for the exponent.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 3] The color bars in Fig. 3 are helpful, but the reader cannot tell from the heatmap how many grid points are used in each direction or whether any intermediate values were interpolated. Please indicate the discrete parameter values explicitly (e.g., markers on the axes).
  4. [Supplemental Material, stability discussion] The claim that the modified adhesion term (4d) is 'less likely' to produce large forces in low-φ regions is plausible but not quantified. A brief test of the maximum stable ω_ij for the old and new terms would make the numerical-stability statement more concrete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the reported fluidisation and non-monotonic D_diff are direct simulation observations with a priori model parameters and external comparison.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a numerical experiment: Ornstein-Uhlenbeck fluctuations are imposed on pairwise adhesions with prescribed variance and persistence time (Eq. 5), and cell mobility is characterised by MSD (Eq. 6) and D_diff ≡ MSD(T)/(4T). None of these quantities is defined in terms of the reported non-monotonic dependence on τ_ω; the model parameters (γ, λ, μ, κ, ξ, J0, R) are fixed from earlier literature and are not fitted to reproduce the heatmaps in Fig. 3. The agreement with the vertex-model result [21] is an external, non-overlapping comparison — [21] is not authored by Graham or Rozman — so the 'confirming' language is not a self-citation chain. The few self-citations ([23,24,48]) are contextual or future-work mentions and are not load-bearing. The authors' explicit caveat that the final simulation time is comparable with the largest τ_ω is an honest statistical/memory-time limitation, and the SI partially mitigates it by showing the trend for τ_ω < 10^4 and near-linear MSD exponents; this concerns sampling sufficiency, not circular reasoning. No step reduces to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a set of modeling choices imported from the vertex-model literature and on simulation parameters taken from prior phase-field work. The most novel element, the modified adhesion term, is introduced ad hoc but is not central to the fluidisation result; the fluidisation could plausibly be reproduced with other adhesion forms.

free parameters (9)
  • gamma = 1.4
    Cahn-Hilliard energy scale from prior phase-field literature (Refs. 29,32,33).
  • lambda = 2.0
    Interface width from prior phase-field literature.
  • mu = 120
    Area constraint strength from prior phase-field literature.
  • kappa = 1.5
    Repulsion strength from prior phase-field literature.
  • xi = 3.0
    Friction coefficient from prior phase-field literature.
  • R = 8.0
    Target cell radius (lattice units) from prior phase-field literature.
  • J0 = 1e-2
    Relaxation rate in Eq. (1) from prior phase-field literature.
  • sigma_omega = scanned 0.1 to 1.5
    Amplitude of adhesion fluctuations; control parameter.
  • tau_omega = scanned 10 to 1e5
    Persistence time of adhesion fluctuations; control parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The phase-field free energy in Eq. (4) with parameters from prior literature adequately represents an epithelial monolayer.
    The model is taken from Mueller et al. (2019) and Zhang et al. (2020); no validation against experiments is provided in this paper.
  • domain assumption Ornstein-Uhlenbeck fluctuations in pairwise adhesion strengths represent stochastic turnover of junctional molecular motors.
    This analogy is borrowed from vertex models (Refs. 18,19,21); the paper does not derive it from a microscopic model.
  • domain assumption The system reaches a steady state after the initial 3e4 time unit equilibration.
    The paper assumes this without testing for different initial conditions or longer equilibration.
  • domain assumption The neighbor list Ni(t) is updated consistently with cell-cell contacts during T1 transitions.
    The method for detecting neighbors is not described in detail, which is critical for the OU process and for counting neighbor changes.
  • ad hoc to paper The modified adhesion term in Eq. (4d), whose functional derivative is proportional to φ^(i), is numerically stable and physically equivalent to previous adhesion formulations.
    The authors introduce this modification to improve stability (Supplemental Material), but they do not show that it preserves the physics of the original adhesion term.
  • standard math The numerical integration (one-step predictor-corrector, finite difference for the OU process) is accurate over the long simulation time.
    The paper does not report convergence tests or timestep checks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Junctional-Fluctuation-Mediated Fluidisation of Multi-Phase Field Epithelial Monolayers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YS3ZKR5J

@misc{pith2026250818987,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Junctional-Fluctuation-Mediated Fluidisation of Multi-Phase Field Epithelial Monolayers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YS3ZKR5J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18987}
}
read the original abstract

We analyse a multi-phase field model for an epithelial monolayer with pairwise adhesions between neighbouring cells following an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, representing the stochastic turnover of junctional molecular motors. These fluctuations in junctional adhesion result in rearrangements in the tissue, fluidising it and producing diffusive cell motion. Similar junctional fluctuations have proven a very useful tool in the vertex model literature, and we hope they will be equally helpful to the multi-phase field model approach. Moreover, we observe that the cells' effective diffusion coefficient depends non-monotonically on the persistence time of the fluctuations, confirming results previously observed in the vertex model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18987 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A quartet of cells (a) before, (b) during, and (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Model tissue with (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Heatmaps of (a) the effective diffusion coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alert and X

    R. Alert and X. Trepat, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 77 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    W. Xi, T. B. Saw, D. Delacour, C. T. Lim, and B. Ladoux, Nat. Rev. Mater. 4, 23 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Shankar, A

    S. Shankar, A. Souslov, M. J. Bowick, M. C. Marchetti, and V. Vitelli, Nat. Rev. Phys. 4, 380 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Ranft, M

    J. Ranft, M. Basan, J. Elgeti, J.-F. Joanny, J. Prost, and F. J¨ ulicher, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.107, 20863 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Serra-Picamal, V

    X. Serra-Picamal, V. Conte, R. Vincent, E. Anon, D. T. Tambe, E. Bazellieres, J. P. Butler, J. J. Fredberg, and X. Trepat, Nat. Phys. 8, 628 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [7]

    Szabo, G

    B. Szabo, G. Sz¨ oll¨ osi, B. G¨ onci, Z. Jur´ anyi, D. Selmeczi, and T. Vicsek, Phys. Rev. E 74, 061908 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [8]

    Sep´ ulveda, L

    N. Sep´ ulveda, L. Petitjean, O. Cochet, E. Grasland- Mongrain, P. Silberzan, and V. Hakim, PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1002944 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [9]

    Garcia, E

    S. Garcia, E. Hannezo, J. Elgeti, J.-F. Joanny, P. Sil- berzan, and N. S. Gov, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 15314 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 48 references
  1. [10]

    Graner and J

    F. Graner and J. A. Glazier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2013 (1992)

    2013

  2. [11]

    J. A. Glazier and F. Graner, Phys. Rev. E 47, 2128 (1993)

    1993

  3. [12]

    Hirashima, E

    T. Hirashima, E. G. Rens, and R. M. Merks, Dev. Growth Differ. 59, 329 (2017)

    2017

  4. [13]

    Honda and G

    H. Honda and G. Eguchi, J. Theor. Biol. 84, 575 (1980)

    1980

  5. [14]

    Farhadifar, J.-C

    R. Farhadifar, J.-C. R¨ oper, B. Aigouy, S. Eaton, and F. J¨ ulicher, Curr. Biol.17, 2095 (2007)

  6. [15]

    A. G. Fletcher, M. Osterfield, R. E. Baker, and S. Y. Shvartsman, Biophysical journal 106, 2291 (2014)

    2014

  7. [16]

    D. Bi, J. Lopez, J. M. Schwarz, and M. L. Manning, Nat. Phys. 11, 1074 (2015)

    2015

  8. [17]

    S. Alt, P. Ganguly, and G. Salbreux, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20150520 (2017)

    2017

  9. [18]

    Curran, C

    S. Curran, C. Strandkvist, J. Bathmann, M. de Gennes, A. Kabla, G. Salbreux, and B. Baum, Dev. Cell 43, 480 (2017)

    2017

  10. [19]

    Krajnc, Soft Matter 16, 3209 (2020)

    M. Krajnc, Soft Matter 16, 3209 (2020)

    2020

  11. [20]

    Duclut, J

    C. Duclut, J. Paijmans, M. M. Inamdar, C. D. Modes, and F. J¨ ulicher, Cells Dev. 168, 203746 (2021)

    2021

  12. [21]

    Yamamoto, D

    T. Yamamoto, D. M. Sussman, T. Shibata, and M. L. Manning, Soft Matter 18, 2168 (2022)

    2022

  13. [22]

    R. J. Tetley, M. F. Staddon, D. Heller, A. Hoppe, S. Banerjee, and Y. Mao, Nat. Phys. 15, 1195 (2019)

    2019

  14. [23]

    Rozman, M

    J. Rozman, M. Krajnc, and P. Ziherl, Nat. Commun. 11, 3805 (2020)

    2020

  15. [24]

    Rozman, M

    J. Rozman, M. Krajnc, and P. Ziherl, Eur. Phys. J. E 44, 99 (2021)

    2021

  16. [25]

    Duclut, J

    C. Duclut, J. Paijmans, M. M. Inamdar, C. D. Modes, and F. J¨ ulicher, Eur. Phys. J. E 45, 29 (2021)

    2021

  17. [26]

    Keta and S

    Y.-E. Keta and S. Henkes, Soft Matter 21, 5710 (2025)

    2025

  18. [27]

    Nonomura, PLoS ONE 7, e33501 (2012)

    M. Nonomura, PLoS ONE 7, e33501 (2012)

    2012

  19. [28]

    Najem and M

    S. Najem and M. Grant, Phys. Rev. E 93, 052405 (2016)

    2016

  20. [29]

    Mueller, J

    R. Mueller, J. M. Yeomans, and A. Doostmohammadi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 048004 (2019)

    2019

  21. [30]

    Moure and H

    A. Moure and H. Gomez, Arch. Computat. Methods Eng. 28, 311 (2021)

    2021

  22. [31]

    B. A. Camley and W.-J. Rappel, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 50, 113002 (2017)

    2017

  23. [33]

    Mueller and A

    R. Mueller and A. Doostmohammadi, arXiv:2102.05557 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Zhang and J

    G. Zhang and J. M. Yeomans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 038202 (2023)

    2023

  25. [35]

    See Supplemental Material at [url will be inserted by pub- lisher] for additional model details, Figures S1 and S2, and captions for Movies S1-S3,

  26. [36]

    T. B. Saw, A. Doostmohammadi, V. Nier, L. Kocgozlu, S. Thampi, Y. Toyama, P. Marcq, C. T. Lim, J. M. Yeo- mans, and B. Ladoux, Nature 544, 212 (2017)

    2017

  27. [37]

    Merkel, R

    M. Merkel, R. Etournay, M. Popovi´ c, G. Salbreux, S. Eaton, and F. J¨ ulicher, Phys. Rev. E 95, 032401 (2017)

    2017

  28. [38]

    S.-Z. Lin, M. Merkel, and J.-F. Rupprecht, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 058202 (2023)

    2023

  29. [39]

    Monfared, G

    S. Monfared, G. Ravichandran, J. Andrade, and A. Doostmohammadi, eLife 12, e82435 (2023)

    2023

  30. [40]

    Sknepnek, I

    R. Sknepnek, I. Djafer-Cherif, M. Chuai, C. J. Weijer, and S. Henkes, eLife 12, e79862 (2023)

    2023

  31. [41]

    B. I. Halperin and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 121 (1978)

    1978

  32. [42]

    D. R. Nelson and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 19, 2457 (1979)

    1979

  33. [43]

    Li and M

    Y.-W. Li and M. P. Ciamarra, Phys. Rev. Materials 2, 045602 (2018)

    2018

  34. [44]

    Pasupalak, L

    A. Pasupalak, L. Yan-Wei, R. Ni, and M. P. Ciamarra, Soft Matter 16, 3914 (2020)

    2020

  35. [45]

    Loewe, M

    B. Loewe, M. Chiang, D. Marenduzzo, and M. C. Marchetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 038003 (2020). 6

    2020

  36. [46]

    Zankoc and M

    C. Zankoc and M. Krajnc, Biophys. J. 119, 1706 (2020)

    2020

  37. [47]

    Krajnc, T

    M. Krajnc, T. Stern, and C. Zankoc, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 198103 (2021)

    2021

  38. [48]

    Rozman, J

    J. Rozman, J. M. Yeomans, and R. Sknepnek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 228301 (2023). Supplemental Material: Junctional-Fluctuation-Mediated Fluidisation of Multi-Phase Field Epithelial Monolayers James N. Graham 1 and Jan Rozman 1 1Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, Uni...

    2023

  39. [49]

    1, and 0

    3, 1 . 1, and 0 . 9 are, respectively, 0 . 94, 0 . 87, 1 . 03, and 0 . 97. Legend on panel (a) applies to all panels. MOVIE CAPTIONS • Movie S1: T1 transition induced in the multi-phase field model: red cells i nitially have pairwise adhesion ω ij = 10, whereas all other pairwi...

  40. [50]

    Zhang, R

    G. Zhang, R. Mueller, A. Doostmohammadi, and J. M. Yeomans, J. R. Soc. Interface 17, 20200312 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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