Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Bistatic Sensing in 5G NR

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 bistatic 5G ISaC receiver estimates target delay and Doppler from decoded PUSCH data and DMRS, with a HARQ-aware MSE near the Cramér–Rao lower bound.

desk verdict A practical PUSCH-based bistatic ISAC paper with a correct, if standard, ML/CRLB core, but the HARQ-aware MSE formula in Proposition 1 appears wrong as written and the headline result rests on perfect LoS cancellation with no robustness analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12555 v1 pith:ZQNW7ZVM submitted 2025-05-18 eess.SP

Rajeev Gangula , Sakthivel Velumani , Tommaso Melodia This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords integratedsensingandcommunicationbistatic5GNRPUSCHDMRSmaximumlikelihoodestimationCramér-RaolowerboundHARQ
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 treating an ordinary 5G uplink PUSCH transmission as a bistatic sensing signal: once a base station decodes a user's data block, it can reconstruct the transmitted symbols and use every resource element, not just reference symbols, to estimate the delay and Doppler shift of a reflected target. The central claim is that this yields sensing accuracy close to the Cramér–Rao lower bound while the link still delivers high throughput, and that the tradeoff between pilot count, coding rate, and sensing error can be quantified. A maximum-likelihood estimator for delay and Doppler is derived, and a HARQ-aware formula combines the error in slots where decoding fails (DMRS only) with the error in slots where the full PUSCH is available. Link-level simulations for QPSK show range and Doppler RMSE curves near the bound across SNR.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is Proposition 1, which writes the average sensing MSE as $$\text{MSE}(\lambda_n) = (1-\rho)\text{MSE}_1(\lambda_n) + \rho\,\text{MSE}_2(\lambda_n),$$ where $\rho = (1-\prod_{i=1}^4 P_i)/\mathbb{E}[X]$ is formed from the HARQ round error probabilities $P_i$ and the expected number of rounds $\mathbb{E}[X]$. Scenario 1 (CRC failure) uses only DMRS resource elements, while scenario 2 (successful decode) uses all resource elements after data reconstruction. The estimator itself is a two-dimensional periodogram over delay and Doppler, and the CRLB comes from the Fisher information matrix (16), which switches its summation domain between DMRS-only and all-RE sets. The NR standard's MCS table supplies the code rate and modulation order that connect sensing performance to throughput.

What would settle it

Inject a known residual line-of-sight component of increasing strength into the received uplink channel after cancellation and compare the simulated delay and Doppler RMSE against the paper's Cramér–Rao lower bound; the claim fails if the RMSE departs from the bound once the residual exceeds a small fraction of the reflected path power.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a 5G NR bistatic integrated sensing and communication receiver can use decoded PUSCH data as a sensing waveform without dedicated radar resources, provided the user position is known and the line-of-sight path is removed. The single-target delay and Doppler estimates come from a maximum-likelihood periodogram, and the Fisher information matrix gives a Cramér–Rao lower bound for both the DMRS-only case and the full-PUSCH case. Proposition 1 weights these two cases by the HARQ decoding probabilities, producing an average sensing MSE for the actual transmission process. Numerical results with QPSK show range RMSE scaling down to meter scale and Doppler RMSE decreasing with SNR, close to the lower bound, while throughput remains several megabits per second.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the base station already knows the user's position and can completely remove the direct line-of-sight path from the received signal before sensing; if any residual line-of-sight energy remains, the single-target error bounds no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing 5G NR uplink deployments can provide bistatic sensing without new waveforms or full-duplex hardware, as long as transport blocks decode successfully often enough.
  • Increasing DMRS density improves sensing RMSE but lowers throughput; the paper's MSE formula quantifies this tradeoff, so pilot configurations can be chosen by sensing requirement.
  • At low SNR where decoding fails, sensing degrades to DMRS-only performance, and the HARQ-aware formula predicts how retransmissions partially recover sensing accuracy.
  • The CRLB for the full-PUSCH case is a floor for any estimator that uses all resource elements after decoding, giving a benchmark for future joint estimators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the line-of-sight removal assumption holds, the same receiver logic extends to downlink PDSCH and to multi-antenna base stations for angle-of-arrival, turning the delay-Doppler estimates into full target localization.
  • The HARQ-aware MSE formula implies that retransmissions, normally a throughput cost, also act as sensing diversity; a scheduler could trade redundancy rounds for sensing accuracy at low SNR.
  • With higher-order modulation, data symbols are no longer unit-magnitude; a testable extension would divide out estimated QAM magnitudes and track how amplitude estimation error propagates into the delay-Doppler periodogram.
  • The line-of-sight residual is the main risk to the claim; an experiment that injects imperfect cancellation would map how much residual power is needed to push the RMSE away from the CRLB.
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 manuscript considers a bistatic 5G NR integrated sensing and communication (ISaC) system in which the gNB performs sensing on the uplink PUSCH. The gNB first decodes the transport block; if decoding succeeds, it reconstructs the data symbols and uses both DMRS and data REs for delay-Doppler estimation, whereas in case of CRC failure it uses only DMRS. The paper derives the maximum likelihood estimator for the delay and Doppler of a single point target, presents the Fisher information matrix and Cramér-Rao lower bound, and combines the two sensing modes with a HARQ-aware mixture formula in Proposition 1. Numerical results with the MATLAB 5G Toolbox show range and Doppler RMSE versus SNR as well as throughput, comparing different DMRS configurations and MCS indices.

Significance. The contribution is useful and timely: it shows that existing PUSCH transmissions, without a dedicated sensing waveform, can in principle provide bistatic sensing, and it quantifies the throughput-sensing tradeoff. The signal model, FIM, and CRLB are standard and, apart from the issues below, correctly applied. The paper gives a clear simulation setup and compares against a 3GPP-compliant PUSCH chain, which strengthens the relevance of the numerical results. The HARQ-aware weighting of the two sensing modes is an interesting idea. However, the headline claim depends critically on an unexamined assumption of perfect LoS removal, and Proposition 1 needs to be stated and proved more carefully; these points currently prevent the paper from supporting its central practical claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.B and Section V (Figs. 3-6)] The assumption that the gNB can successfully remove the LoS path from the UL CIR for sensing is load-bearing for every sensing result in the paper. Under this assumption, Eq. (12), the likelihoods (13)-(14), the FIM (16), and the CRLB (18) are derived for a single target in white noise only. However, in the simulations the LoS path is roughly 10 times (10 dB) stronger than the target, and the text states 'we assume that the LoS path has been successfully removed' with no cancellation algorithm, no residual-error model, and no sensitivity analysis. If LoS removal is imperfect, the residual LoS acts as a strong deterministic interferer with delay tau0 and Doppler 0, the single-target likelihood is misspecified, and the CRLB in (18) is no longer a valid bound on the actual estimator MSE. This is a correctness-risk concern rather than an internal inconsistency, but it directly affects the central claim that existing PUSCH can support accurate bistatic sensing. The authors should either include a LoS cancellation procedure with a residual-error characterization, provide a robustness study showing how the RMSE and the CRLB comparison behave as the residual LoS strength increases, or explicitly restrict the claims to a system where LoS removal is guaranteed externally.
  2. [Section IV.D, Eq. (17) and its proof] The displayed definition of rho is ambiguous and inconsistent with the proof. The text prints 'rho = 1 - prod_{i=1}^4 P_i / E[X]' without parentheses; the proof and the surrounding algebra require rho = (1 - prod_{i=1}^4 P_i)/E[X]. As printed, the formula would read as 1 - (prod P_i)/E[X], which is not the coefficient used in the proof. In addition, the proof's intermediate statement that the average MSE in the complementary case is (1 - 1/E[X]) MSE1 + MSE2/E[X] is not justified as a conditional average: for TBs that are eventually decoded, the slot-level average is E[(X-1)/X | success] MSE1 + E[1/X | success] MSE2, which involves E[1/X]. The final per-slot formula can be derived exactly by counting scenario-1 and scenario-2 slots over all TBs and yields rho = (1 - prod P_i)/E[X]; the proof should be rewritten to show this explicitly rather than relying on an unstated approximation.
  3. [Section IV.C, Eq. (16)] The (1,1) entry of the FIM in Eq. (16) is written as KL, but for scenario 1 the active RE set is only the DMRS REs. The accompanying sentence says the summations are restricted to DMRS REs in scenario 1, but the top-left entry is not written as a summation and therefore appears to use KL even when only Np = |DMRS| REs are available. Since the CRLB for delay and Doppler, and hence the weighted lower bound in Proposition 1, depend on the full FIM through the Schur complement, the top-left entry should be replaced by Np (or by an explicit sum over the active RE set) for scenario 1.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.A] The text states that the error probabilities satisfy 'P4 i=1 Pi = 1', which is inconsistent with the use of products in Eqs. (10) and (17). The intended condition is presumably 0 <= P_i <= 1 with the overall failure probability given by prod_{i=1}^4 P_i; this should be corrected.
  2. [Section IV.B, Eq. (12)] After 'undoing the phase' of the symbol, the measurement should be written as x_{k,l}^* y_{k,l}; the current notation z_{k,l} = |x_{k,l}| alpha_1 e^{-j2 pi f_k tau_1} e^{j2 pi l T_s nu_1} + w~ is only valid for |x_{k,l}| = 1, which the text states, but an explicit conjugation would improve clarity.
  3. [Section V, Fig. 3] There is a typo 'Fig, 3' in the main text; in addition, the legends in Figs. 3 and 4 are difficult to parse because the curve labels are not clearly separated from the 'DMRS = 2' and 'DMRS = 4' annotations.
  4. [Section II.C] The acronym 'AGWN' should be 'AWGN' (additive white Gaussian noise).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensing MSE analysis is derived from the stated signal model and standard CRLB machinery, benchmarked against 3GPP PUSCH, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. The system model (Section II) defines the received OFDM signal and channel; the receiver (Section IV) constructs the ML cost functions (13)-(14) for the DMRS-only and all-RE cases, computes the Fisher information matrix (15)-(16) using the standard OFDM-radar formula from [18], and obtains the CRLB in (18). This is a model-derived bound, not a quantity fitted to the simulations. Proposition 1 (17) is a weighted average of the two scenario MSEs using the HARQ decoding-error probabilities Pi and expected number of rounds E[X] from (10)-(11); it is a total-probability decomposition rather than an independent prediction, and the Pi values come from the 3GPP PUSCH link simulations rather than from sensing performance. The throughput and BLER curves come from the MATLAB 5G Toolbox with standard PUSCH/MCS parameters from [22] and [23], so the communication side is externally benchmarked. The sensing side is validated against its own CRLB in Fig. 6, which is a normal lower-bound comparison and is not circular because the bound is not obtained by fitting the simulated RMSE curve. The paper does state a load-bearing idealization: Section IV.B says 'we assume that the UE position is known, and the gNB can successfully remove the LoS path from the UL CIR for sensing,' and Section V assumes SNR_c = 10 SNR_1 so the LoS is about 9.5 dB stronger than the target. That is a robustness limitation and an unquantified sensitivity, but it is an explicit assumption, not a circular step; the derivation does not define its output in terms of that assumption except as an operating condition. The only self-citation in the paper, [3] in the introduction, is not load-bearing for the sensing or throughput claims. I find no step where a prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input, nor any load-bearing self-citation chain or ansatz smuggled in via citation. Hence the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and receives a non-circularity score of 0.

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

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted parameters. Its analysis relies on standard OFDM radar results (ML periodogram, CRLB) and 3GPP PUSCH definitions. The main assumptions are the idealized LoS removal and single-target scenario, which are clearly stated but not stress-tested.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption UE position is known and LoS path is perfectly removed
    Section IV.B states these assumptions; the sensing model considers only the reflected path after LoS removal.
  • domain assumption Single target and single-bounce multipath (P=2)
    Section IV.B and V restrict to a single target; the CRLB is for one target only.
  • domain assumption QPSK modulation with unit-amplitude symbols
    Section IV.B assumes QPSK so |x_{k,l}|=1; the analysis does not cover higher-order modulations.
  • domain assumption No ISI/ICI: tau_max < T and nu_max < Delta f
    Section II.B assumes these bounds to justify the flat-fading RE model in (4).
  • domain assumption HARQ error probabilities Pi and independence assumptions
    Section IV.A and Proposition 1 rely on the Pi model from [24], including independence and P_i<=P_j for i>j.
  • standard math Standard CRLB applies for unbiased estimators
    Section IV.D uses (F^{-1})_{nn} as a lower bound on MSE for unbiased estimation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bistatic Sensing in 5G NR." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZQNW7ZVM

@misc{pith2026250512555,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bistatic Sensing in 5G NR},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZQNW7ZVM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12555}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we propose and evaluate the performance of a 5th generation (5G) New Radio (NR) bistatic Integrated Sensing and Communication (ISaC) system. Unlike the full-duplex monostatic ISaC systems, the bistatic approach enables sensing in the current cellular networks without significantly modifying the transceiver design. The sensing utilizes data channels, such as the Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH), which carries information on the air interface. We provide the maximum likelihood estimator for the delay and Doppler parameters and derive a lower bound on the Mean Square Error (MSE) for a single target scenario. Link-level simulations show that it is possible to achieve significant throughput while accurately estimating the sensing parameters with PUSCH. Moreover, the results reveal an interesting tradeoff between the number of reference symbols, sensing performance, and throughput in the proposed 5G NR bistatic ISaC system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12555 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Bistatic geometry with the p-th target τmax = max{τ0, . . . , τP −1} and maximum Doppler shift νmax = max{ν0, . . . , νP −1} of the channel are assumed to satisfy τmax < T, νmax < ∆f. C. Receiver Based on the transmitted signal (1) and the channel (2), the received signal at the gNB can be written as y(t) = P X−1 p=0 αpx(t − τp)e j2πνpt + w(t), (3) where w(t) ∈ C represents the circularly symmetric complex Additive … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ISaC PUSCH Transceiver l2(Z|λ) = K X−1 k=0 L X−1 l=0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PUSCH range RMSE and throughput for MCS 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PUSCH ISaC performance for MCS 0 and 1 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 SNR1 [dB] 10 0 10 2 10 4 10 6 10 8 Doppler RMSE [Hz] PUSCH Lower bound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PUSCH Doppler RMSE and its lower bound, MCS 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Passive AoA Estimation of COTS 5G NR Handsets from Uplink SRS: A Practical USRP-B210 Implementation

    eess.SP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Passive angle-of-arrival estimation of unmodified commercial 5G handsets from native uplink SRS is feasible with a two-element USRP B210 and a stock srsRAN gNB; accuracy is gated by SINR and multipath rather than range.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [14]

    Bi-static sensing with 5G NR physical uplink shared channel transmission,

    V . Tapio, N. Tervo, M. E. Leinonen, and A. Pärssinen, “Bi-static sensing with 5G NR physical uplink shared channel transmission,” in IEEE International Symposium on Joint Communications & Sensing , 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    feasibility study on integrated sensing and communication (Release 19),

    3GPP, “feasibility study on integrated sensing and communication (Release 19),” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), TR 22.837 v19.0.0, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual- functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond,

    F. Liu et al. , “Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual- functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728–1767, 2022. -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 SNR1 [dB] 10 -2 10 0 10 2 10 4 10 6 10 8 Range RMSE [meters] PUSCH, BLER = 0 DMRS = 4 PUSCH, DMRS = 4 DMRS = 2 PUSCH, DMRS = ...

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Listen-While-Talking: Toward dApp-based Real- Time Spectrum Sharing in O-RAN,

    R. Gangula et al. , “Listen-While-Talking: Toward dApp-based Real- Time Spectrum Sharing in O-RAN,” IEEE MILCOM, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    Integrated sensing and communications framework for 6G networks,

    H. Luo et al., “Integrated sensing and communications framework for 6G networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19925 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Integrated sensing and communication waveform design: A survey,

    W. Zhou, R. Zhang, G. Chen, and W. Wu, “Integrated sensing and communication waveform design: A survey,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , vol. 3, pp. 1930–1949, 2022

    1930

  7. [6]

    Target localization using bistatic and multistatic radar with 5G NR waveform,

    O. Kanhere, S. Goyal, M. Beluri, and T. S. Rappaport, “Target localization using bistatic and multistatic radar with 5G NR waveform,” in IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2021-Spring) , 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Analysis of an LTE waveform for radar applications,

    A. Evers and J. A. Jackson, “Analysis of an LTE waveform for radar applications,” in 2014 IEEE Radar Conference , 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 24 references
  1. [8]

    Multiple reference signals collaborative sensing for integrated sensing and communication system towards 5G-A and 6G,

    Z. Wei et al. , “Multiple reference signals collaborative sensing for integrated sensing and communication system towards 5G-A and 6G,” IEEE Trans on Vehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 10, 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    A downlink pilot based signal processing method for integrated sensing and communication towards 6G,

    L. Ma, Pan et al., “A downlink pilot based signal processing method for integrated sensing and communication towards 6G,” in IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, 2022. -20 -15 -10 -5 0 SNR1 [dB] 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 Doppler RMSE [Hz] PUSCH, BLER = 0 DMRS PU...

    2022

  3. [10]

    Leveraging PRS and PDSCH for integrated sensing and communication systems,

    K. Khosroshahi, P. Sehier, and S. Mekki, “Leveraging PRS and PDSCH for integrated sensing and communication systems,” in IEEE Global Communications Conference, 2024

    2024

  4. [11]

    5G PRS-based sensing: A sensing reference signal approach for joint sensing and communication system,

    Z. Wei et al. , “5G PRS-based sensing: A sensing reference signal approach for joint sensing and communication system,” IEEE Trans- actions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 3250–3263, 2023

    2023

  5. [12]

    Doppler ambiguity elimi- nation using 5G signals in integrated sensing and communication,

    K. Khosroshahi, P. Sehier, and S. Mekki, “Doppler ambiguity elimi- nation using 5G signals in integrated sensing and communication,” in IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2024-Fall), 2024

    2024

  6. [13]

    Integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) for vehicles: Bistatic radar with 5G-NR signals,

    N. K. Nataraja, S. Sharma, K. Ali, F. Bai, R. Wang, and A. F. Molisch, “Integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) for vehicles: Bistatic radar with 5G-NR signals,” IEEE Trans on Vehicular Technology, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    A multiple target doppler estimation algorithm for OFDM based intelligent radar sys- tems,

    C. Sturm, M. Braun, T. Zwick, and W. Wiesbeck, “A multiple target doppler estimation algorithm for OFDM based intelligent radar sys- tems,” in The 7th European Radar Conference , 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    OFDM radar algorithms in mobile communication net- works,

    B. Martin, “OFDM radar algorithms in mobile communication net- works,” PhD thesis, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT), 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    Comparison of ofdm radar and chirp sequence radar,

    J. Fink and F. K. Jondral, “Comparison of ofdm radar and chirp sequence radar,” in 16th International Radar Symposium (IRS) , 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Performance analysis of joint radar and communication using OFDM and OTFS,

    L. Gaudio, M. Kobayashi, B. Bissinger, and G. Caire, “Performance analysis of joint radar and communication using OFDM and OTFS,” in IEEE ICC Workshops, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Performance analysis of uplink joint communication and sensing system,

    Y . Li et al., “Performance analysis of uplink joint communication and sensing system,” in IEEE/CIC ICCC, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Joint target localization and data detection in bistatic ISAC networks,

    N. Zhao, Q. Chang, X. Shen, Y . Wang, and Y . Shen, “Joint target localization and data detection in bistatic ISAC networks,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , 2024. -20 -15 -10 -5 0 SNR1 [dB] 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 Doppler RMSE [Hz] BLER = 0 DMRS MCS 0 MC...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Cramer-Rao bounds and selection of bistatic channels for multistatic radar systems,

    M. S. Greco, P. Stinco, F. Gini, and A. Farina, “Cramer-Rao bounds and selection of bistatic channels for multistatic radar systems,” IEEE Trans on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 47, no. 4, 2011

    2011

  14. [22]

    Multiplexing and channel coding,

    3GPP, “Multiplexing and channel coding,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Specification (TS) 38.212 V16.7.0 , 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Physical layer procedures for data,

    ——, “Physical layer procedures for data,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Specification (TS) 38.214 V16.6.0 , 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Performance of hybrid-ARQ in block-fading channels: A fixed outage probability analysis,

    P. Wu and N. Jindal, “Performance of hybrid-ARQ in block-fading channels: A fixed outage probability analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1129–1141, 2010

    2010

Pith tools

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