Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Sequential ejections of plasma blobs due to unbraiding of tangled loops in the solar atmosphere

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read High-resolution EUV images show five sequential plasma blobs ejected by unbraiding of tangled solar loops, with estimated energies in the nanoflare range.

desk verdict Solid EUI imaging of sequential blob ejections from braid unbraiding, but the energy-partition conclusion depends on assumed density and field. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13009 v1 pith:6RJH2BXD submitted 2025-04-17 astro-ph.SR

Xiuhui Zuo , Zhenghua Huang , Hengyuan Wei , Chao Zhang , Boyu Sun , Youqian Qi , Hui Fu , Weixin Liu
show 3 more authors
Mingzhe Sun Ming Xiong Lidong Xia
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarcoronacoronalheatingnanoflaresmagneticbraidingreconnectionplasmablobsuppertransitionregionOrbiterEUI
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 reports high-resolution extreme-ultraviolet observations of a braided loop system in the solar upper transition region, where five plasma blobs are ejected in sequence over about two minutes. The authors interpret the blobs as the visible result of magnetic unbraiding: component reconnection between tangled long and short loops releases magnetic free energy, and the slingshot tension of post-reconnection loops flings plasma outward. Measured core sizes near $700$ km, speeds near $90$ km s$^{-1}$, durations under a minute, and extensions up to about $2{,}000$ km along the confining loops give a concrete observational profile for a nanoflare-like process. Assuming an upper-transition-region density and a $10$ G apex field, they estimate a blob's kinetic energy at about $2.3\times10^{23}$ erg and the available magnetic free energy at about $3.4\times10^{23}$ erg. If correct, this is direct support for the nanoflare coronal-heating scenario and indicates that most of the released magnetic energy appears as bulk motion.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is component magnetic reconnection between braided long and short loops: when the tangled field lines reconnect, the newly formed post-reconnection loops have sharp curvature and the resulting magnetic tension flings plasma sideways, the slingshot effect. The quantitative backbone is a pair of simple energy estimates, $E_k = \tfrac{1}{2} n m_p V v^2$ for kinetic energy and $E_m = \frac{(B\sin\theta)^2}{8\pi} V$ for magnetic free energy, evaluated with $n\sim10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$, $V=(700\,\mathrm{km})^3$, $v=90$ km s$^{-1}$, $B=10$ G, and $\theta=30^\circ$. These formulas convert the imaging measurements into the claim that the events are nanoflares converting magnetic energy into motion.

What would settle it

Measure the actual density and magnetic field of one of these blob events, for example with density-sensitive extreme-ultraviolet line ratios and a high-resolution magnetogram at the loop apex. If the density were an order of magnitude lower, the kinetic energy would drop below roughly $2\times10^{23}$ erg, and if the field were significantly stronger than $10$ G, the magnetic free energy would rise; either outcome would erase the conclusion that most free energy ends up as motion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that sequential ejections of plasma blobs from a tangled loop system are caused by component magnetic reconnection and unbraiding, and that these events are a nanoflare-scale energy-release process whose basic parameters can now be measured. The observations show blobs with bright cores of roughly $700$ km, lifetimes under one minute, and speeds near $90$ km s$^{-1}$, traveling along post-reconnection loops that separate from the main loop axis by about $30^\circ$. An unbraiding node propagates along the main axis at about $45$ km s$^{-1}$. The blobs are not collimated jets; they stay attached to the magnetic loops and stretch along them for up to about $2{,}000$ km, showing that the ejected plasma is magnetically confined. The paper estimates the magnetic free energy of a typical event at $3.4\times10^{23}$ erg and the kinetic energy at $2.3\times10^{23}$ erg, placing each event in the nanoflare regime and suggesting that a majority of the magnetic free energy goes into kinematic energy rather than direct heating or radiation.

Load-bearing premise

The energy budget rests on assuming the blobs are upper-transition-region plasma with density near $10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ and that the loop apex magnetic field is about $10$ G; if the true density or field strength differs, the claimed partition between magnetic free energy and kinetic energy changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each event releases roughly $3.4\times10^{23}$ erg, squarely in the nanoflare range, so unbraiding of tangled loops can contribute to the coronal-heating energy budget if such events are frequent enough.
  • Because the ejected plasma is observed to be confined along post-reconnection loops rather than beamed into a collimated jet, heating models must treat the energy as initially kinetic and then dissipated, for example by Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities or Kármán vortex streets.
  • The $45$ km s$^{-1}$ motion of the brightening node along the main axis provides a direct observable for how fast the unbraiding or reconnection site propagates, which simulations of braid relaxation can be tested against.
  • The measured separation angles near $30^\circ$ between the post-reconnection loops and the main axis give constraints on the geometry and tension balance at the reconnection site.
  • A statistical survey with more high-cadence extreme-ultraviolet observations could establish how common such sequential blob ejections are and how much they contribute to coronal heating.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if most magnetic free energy in such events becomes kinetic energy, then the coronal-heating efficiency depends on a second step, namely how fast the kinetic energy of the confined blobs thermalizes; the observed extensions up to $2{,}000$ km imply this dissipation happens over a few seconds at most.
  • Inference: the same slingshot mechanism in fully ionized upper-transition-region plasma would predict that prominence 'nano-jets' seen in partially ionized plasma are the same phenomenon with weaker pressure-gradient spreading, a possibility the paper gestures at but does not test.
  • Inference: a direct test of the energy partition would come from measuring the actual density of one of these blobs through density-sensitive spectral line ratios and the magnetic field at the loop apex; the current numbers are assumed, not measured.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes high-resolution HRI/EUI 174 Å observations of a braided coronal loop system in NOAA 13465 on 2023 October 13, together with AIA/SDO multi-passband data and an HMI magnetogram. The authors identify five sequential plasma blob ejections over roughly 90 seconds near the convergence of the loop system, with reported core sizes of about 700 km, durations under one minute, speeds of 79–126 km/s (typical value about 90 km/s), extensions of up to about 2000–2400 km along the post-reconnection loops, and separation angles of 25°–39° relative to the loop main axis. They also report a 45 km/s propagation of bright nodes along the main axis. Using AIA DEM analysis, they argue the structures are at upper-transition-region temperatures (logT/K ≈ 5.5–5.8, with possible excursions to 6.1–6.4). From assumed density and magnetic field values, they estimate a blob kinetic energy of about 2.3 × 10^23 erg and a magnetic free energy of about 3.4 × 10^23 erg, concluding that most free energy is transferred into kinetic energy in this nanoflare-scale process.

Significance. If the energy-partition conclusion were secured, this would be an important observational result: it would provide direct, high-cadence EUV evidence of nanoflare-scale magnetic unbraiding, with the novel claim that the dominant energy output is kinetic rather than thermal or radiative, and with quantitative constraints on blob sizes, durations, speeds, and loop-aligned extensions. The strengths of the paper are its use of unprecedented HRI/EUI resolution, the clear running-difference and time-slice diagnostics that support the morphological and kinematic description, the honest acknowledgment of the single-frame ejection and of assumptions in the energy estimates, and the use of standard formulas without fitted parameters to force the energy balance. The observational characterization of the blob events is likely robust; however, the energy-partition headline is not yet supported at the same level, because it depends on unmeasured density and magnetic-field values.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, energy estimates (Ek and Em formulas); Abstract] The abstract's energy-partition conclusion, that a majority of the magnetic free energy is transferred into kinetic energy, is not secured by the data presented. In Section 4, Ek uses an assumed density n ~ 1 × 10^10 cm^-3 and Em uses B = 10 G borrowed from Xie et al. (2017), with B labeled a "rough approximation"; neither quantity is measured nor propagated through the equations. Since Ek/Em ∝ n/(B^2 sin^2θ), the cited B range of 7–14 G and a plausible transition-region density range of 1 × 10^9 to 1 × 10^10 cm^-3 shift the ratio by roughly an order of magnitude in either direction, so the claimed dominance of kinetic energy is not robust. The paper's own AIA DEM data (Figure 6) could provide a constraint on n through EM = n^2 L for an assumed path length, but this is not done. Please either constrain n and B from the observations, propagate uncertainties, and present the energy balance as a range, or remove the unqualified energy-partition statement from the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [§3, time-slice maps (Figure 3)] The reported speeds of the blobs and of the main-axis brightening are quoted without uncertainties or a description of the fitting procedure. With a 6 s cadence and approximately 110 km pixels, the slope estimates over trajectories of 30–80 s carry non-negligible errors, and a quantitative statement of the uncertainty is needed to support the abstract's quantitative claims, including the "about 90 km/s" typical speed. At minimum, report the formal fit errors and assess the sensitivity of the 45 km/s main-axis speed to the contamination from the east-end flow that the authors themselves note in Section 3.
  3. [§4, Em formula and volume assumptions] The identification of Em = (B sinθ)^2 V/(8π) with the "magnetic free energy" of the braid needs justification. For a bundle of braided field lines, the free energy relative to a potential field depends on the accumulated twist and shear along the loop, not only on the instantaneous separation angle θ at the reconnection site. If the intent is to estimate the energy of the transverse field component released by straightening the post-reconnection loop, the text should say so explicitly rather than equating it with the total free energy of the braid. The volume V = (700 km)^3 is also a crude cubic approximation for a blob and should be discussed as such, since both Ek and Em scale linearly with V.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, §4, Conclusions] "Kinematic energy" should be "kinetic energy" throughout; the same typo appears in the abstract, Section 4, and the conclusions.
  2. [§3 and Figure 2 caption] "Seperation angle" should be "separation angle," and "running-different images" should be "running-difference images."
  3. [References] Wilmot-Smith et al. (2009) is listed twice with slightly different formatting (ApJ 696, 1339); these entries should be merged.
  4. [Acknowledgments] The sentence "This work is supported by the the National Key R&D Program" contains a duplicated article, "the the."
  5. [§3, first paragraph] The term "main axis" is used before being explicitly defined; please define it when the blue dashed line in Figure 2(a) is introduced.
  6. [§3, ejection-2 (Figure 3b)] Ejection-2 is seen in only one frame and its speed of 126 km/s is inferred by assuming that a brightening one frame earlier is its source; the authors acknowledge the large uncertainty, but they should state explicitly that this value is tentative and should not be included in any averaged or typical speed without a caveat.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the observational measurements and energy estimates are self-contained; the assumed density and field strength are parameter uncertainties, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central observational claims (blob cores ~700 km, durations under 1 minute, speeds ~90 km/s, extensions up to ~2000 km, separation angles ~30°, node propagation ~45 km/s) are measured directly from HRI/EUI images and time-slice maps, with no claim defined in terms of the conclusion. The energy estimates in Section 4 use standard formulas: Ek = 1/2 n m_p V v^2 with explicitly assumed n ~ 1e10 cm^-3, V = (700 km)^3, and v = 90 km/s, and Em = (B sinθ)^2/(8π) V with B = 10 G borrowed from Xie et al. (2017) and θ = 30°. These are independent inputs, not fitted parameters; neither n nor B is chosen to force Ek < Em, and the paper openly labels the density as 'assumed' and the field as 'a rough approximation.' The sensitivity of Ek/Em to n and B^2 sin^2θ is a robustness or correctness concern, not circularity. Cited external work (Parker 1972; Antolin et al. 2021; Chen et al. 2020; Chitta et al. 2022) provides interpretive context such as the slingshot effect, but does not supply the measured quantities. Self-citations (Huang et al. 2018 for earlier braid evidence; Wei et al. 2023 for possible Kelvin-Helmholtz dissipation) are contextual and not load-bearing. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The observational core does not rely on fitted parameters. The energy comparison does: density and magnetic field are chosen by hand, and the interpretation as unbraiding is an assumed model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Upper transition region plasma density n = 1e10 cm^-3
    Chosen as a typical value in Section 4 to compute Ek = 2.3e23 erg. It is not measured for this event and directly controls the energy-partition conclusion.
  • Loop apex magnetic field strength B = 10 G
    Estimated by analogy with Xie et al. (2017) Table 3 entries 4, 24, and 44, which have apex fields of 7, 12, and 14 G. It is not measured for the present loop and directly controls the magnetic free energy estimate.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The observed Y-shaped loop system consists of distinct braided magnetic field lines whose footpoints are correctly identified as N1, N2, P1, and P2.
    Connections are inferred from coaligned EUI/AIA/HMI images, but the HMI magnetogram is near the limb and the authors note it gives only general information (Section 2).
  • domain assumption The bright blob ejections are caused by component magnetic reconnection and unbraiding, with the slingshot effect of post-reconnection loops producing the perpendicular motion.
    This is the interpretive model in Section 4 and Figure 7. The observations are consistent with it, but alternative explanations such as flows, instabilities, or projection effects are not quantitatively ruled out.
  • domain assumption The DEM inversion correctly attributes the bright node to logT/K = 5.5 to 5.8, with occasional heating to 6.1 to 6.4.
    The DEM analysis assumes equilibrium ionization and standard abundances, and the AIA spatial resolution is coarse near the limb, so the temperature attribution is approximate.
  • standard math The classical expressions for kinetic energy and magnetic free energy apply to the ejected blob and the loop volume.
    Used in Section 4; these are standard physics formulas, not the target of the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sequential ejections of plasma blobs due to unbraiding of tangled loops in the solar atmosphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6RJH2BXD

@misc{pith2026250413009,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sequential ejections of plasma blobs due to unbraiding of tangled loops in the solar atmosphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6RJH2BXD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13009}
}
abstract

Nanoflares, which are consequences of braids in tangled magnetic fields, are an important candidate to heat the solar corona to million degrees. However, their observational evidence is sparse and many of their observational characteristics are yet to be discovered. With the high-resolution observations taken by the Extreme Ultraviolet Imager onboard the Solar Orbiter, here we study a series of ejections of plasma blobs resulted from a braided magnetic loops in the upper transition region and reveal some critical characteristics of such processes. The cores of these ejections have a size of about 700\,km, a duration less than 1 minute and a speed of about 90\,\kms. An important characteristic is that these plasma blobs are apparently constrained by the post-reconnection magnetic loops, along which they show an extension of up to about 2\,000\,km. The propagation of unbraiding nodes along the main axis of the tangled loops has a speed of about 45\,\kms. The separation angles between the post-reconnection loops and the main axis of the tangled loops are about 30\degree. The observations from the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly reveal that the braiding loops are upper transition region structures. Based on these observations, the typical magnetic free energy producing a blob is estimated to be about $3.4\times10^{23}$\,erg, well in the nano-flare regime, while the kinematic energy of a blob is about $2.3\times10^{23}$\,erg, suggesting that a majority of magnetic free energy in a magnetic braid is likely transferred into kinematic energy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13009 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overviews to the observations studied here. (a): Viewing perspectives of the sun by SO and SDO. (b): The full disk of the sun in EUI 174 ˚A passband, on which the square in blue indicates the region containing the region of interest. (c): The full disk of the sun in AIA 171 ˚A passband, on which the region of interest is located near the east limb of the disk (the square in blue). (d): The region of interest in high… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Still images of five ejections of the HRI/EUI 174 ˚A passband when they are best seen. The left column (panels (a)–(e)) shows the original images when the ejections are clearly seen, while the right column (panels (f)–(j)) shows the running difference images. The blue dashed line in panel (a) draws the path of the main axis of the loop system, along which the time-slice map in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time-slice (T-S) maps of the five ejections and the main axis of the loop system based on the HRI/EUI observations. From panel (a) to panel (e), the T-S maps of ejection-1 to ejection-5 are shown. The T-S map of the main axis is shown in panel (f). The speeds of the ejections of the plasma blobs and bright node along the main axis are marked, which are derived from the slopes of their tractories on these maps (the s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The region of interest viewed in the AIA 131 ˚A (a), 171 ˚A (b), 193 ˚A (c), 211 ˚A (d), 304 ˚A (e) and 335 ˚A (f) passbands. The arrows point to the location where the bright node in the main axis of the loop system is located. The white square denotes the region, fro…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The lightcurves of the bright node in the main axis of the loop system in some AIA passbands, and that of HRI/EUI 174 ˚A summed from the main axis and shifted to the AIA time domain. The time range between the two dashed lines is the period when the five ejections take…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The EM maps of the region of interest derived from the AIA EUV images for the temperature ranges of logT/K=5.5– 5.8, 5.8–6.1, 6.1–6.4, 6.4–6.7, 6.7–7.0 and 7.0–7.3. The arrows point to the locations of the bright node at the main axis, where we can see the structure on…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A schematic diagram to interpret the activities observed in the present study. The series of ejections of plasma blobs is generated by component magnetic reconnection/unbraiding processes between the long loops (green lines connecting N1 and P1) and the short loops (cy…

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. Extremely diverse coronal jets accompanying an erupting filament captured by Solar Orbiter

    astro-ph.SR 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Nine transient coronal jets with a median lifetime of 22 seconds were observed accompanying a large limb filament eruption, a class distinct from the usual longer-lived mini-filament jets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1199-8

    Antolin, P., Pagano, P., Testa, P., Petralia, A., & Reale, F. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1199-8

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1199-8 2021

  2. [2]

    2020, ApJ, 899, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9cad Sequential plasma ejections in tangled loops 11

    Chen, H., Zhang, J., De Pontieu, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9cad Sequential plasma ejections in tangled loops 11

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9cad 2020

  3. [3]

    Cheung, M. C. M., Boerner, P., Schrijver, C. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/143

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/2/143 2015

  4. [4]

    P., Peter, H., Parenti, S., et al

    Chitta, L. P., Peter, H., Parenti, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244170

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244170 2022

  5. [5]

    W., Golub, L., Winebarger, A

    Cirtain, J. W., Golub, L., Winebarger, A. R., et al. 2013, Nature, 493, 501, doi: 10.1038/nature11772 De Pontieu, B., Title, A. M., Lemen, J. R., et al. 2014, SoPh, 289, 2733, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0485-y Del Zanna, G., O’Dwyer, B., & Mason, H. E. 2011, A&A, 535, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117470

    doi:10.1038/nature11772 2013

  6. [6]

    J., et al

    Huang, Z., Xia, L., Nelson, C. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9ba

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9ba 2018

  7. [7]

    Klimchuk, J. A. 2006, SoPh, 234, 41, doi: 10.1007/s11207-006-0055-z

    doi:10.1007/s11207-006-0055-z 2006

  8. [8]

    R., et al

    Kobayashi, K., Cirtain, J., Winebarger, A. R., et al. 2014, SoPh, 289, 4393, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0544-4 M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0544-4 2014

Show all 18 references
  1. [9]

    Parker, E. N. 1972, ApJ, 174, 499, doi: 10.1086/151512 —. 1983a, ApJ, 264, 635, doi: 10.1086/160636 —. 1983b, ApJ, 264, 642, doi: 10.1086/160637 —. 1988, ApJ, 330, 474, doi: 10.1086/166485

    1972 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, SoPh, 275, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    V., & Nordlund, ˚A

    Peter, H., Gudiksen, B. V., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2004, ApJL, 617, L85, doi: 10.1086/427168

    2004 doi

  4. [12]

    I., Janvier, M., Tiwari, S

    Pontin, D. I., Janvier, M., Tiwari, S. K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ff9

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, A&A, 642, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663

    Rochus, P., Auch` ere, F., Berghmans, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

    Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 207, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Hannah, I

    Su, Y., Veronig, A. M., Hannah, I. G., et al. 2018, ApJL, 856, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab436 van Ballegooijen, A. A., Asgari-Targhi, M., Cranmer, S. R., & DeLuca, E. E. 2011, ApJ, 736, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/3

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    M., et al

    Wei, H., Huang, Z., Long, D. M., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347313

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    L., Hornig, G., & Pontin, D

    Wilmot-Smith, A. L., Hornig, G., & Pontin, D. I. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 696, 1339, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1339

    2009 doi

  10. [19]

    S., Li, B., et al

    Xie, H., Madjarska, M. S., Li, B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7415

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.