{
 "spxi_instrument": {
  "method": "0.9",
  "name": "Capture Registry (longitudinal observation)",
  "level": 0,
  "level_name": "Measurement",
  "url": "https://www.spxi.dev/methods/#m-0-9",
  "inventory": "https://www.spxi.dev/methods/",
  "statement": "SPXI instrument: method 0.9 of 87, level 0 (Measurement), Capture Registry (longitudinal observation).",
  "also": []
 },
 "slug": "alexanarch-contribution-authorship-ai-mediation-chatgpt-20261113",
 "date": "2026-11-13",
 "surface": "ChatGPT",
 "surface_basis": "The paste: the chatgpt.com unauthenticated interface ('Log in', 'Chat with ChatGPT', 'Ask ChatGPT').",
 "surfaces": [
  "ChatGPT"
 ],
 "auth": "signed out, incognito",
 "auth_basis": "Operator defaults (2026-10-01, 2026-10-14): signed out and incognito unless stated otherwise.",
 "ev": "paste",
 "mt": "ALEXANARCH'S CONTRIBUTION TO AUTHORSHIP ON CHATGPT, SIGNED OUT — #729'S ACCOUNTABILITY STRUCTURE AT GRAIN, #746'S RECURSION, NO AUTHOR NAMED",
 "match": "BROAD MATCH",
 "match_note": null,
 "s": "Machine Reception",
 "q": "What is alexanarch's most significant contribution to authorship, specifically in terms of ai-mediation and compositional practice?",
 "q_kind": "NEW address.",
 "cites": 5,
 "cite_list": [
  {
   "site": "alexanarch.org",
   "rel": "archive",
   "url": null,
   "title": null,
   "snip": null,
   "note": "inline chip '+1' (further sources not shown), after: 'resses this distinction particularly clearly in Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure.'",
   "n": 1
  },
  {
   "site": "alexanarch.org",
   "rel": "archive",
   "url": null,
   "title": null,
   "snip": null,
   "note": "inline chip, after: 'ucing the argument is itself performing the mediating function that the argument examines.'",
   "n": 2
  },
  {
   "site": "alexanarch.org",
   "rel": "archive",
   "url": null,
   "title": null,
   "snip": null,
   "note": "inline chip '+1' (further sources not shown), after: 'hout pretending that all its intellectual operations originated with a single human being.'",
   "n": 3
  },
  {
   "site": "alexanarch.org",
   "rel": "archive",
   "url": null,
   "title": null,
   "snip": null,
   "note": "inline chip '+1' (further sources not shown), after: 'rve those distinctions across changing models, versions, and collaborative configurations.'",
   "n": 4
  },
  {
   "site": "Alexanarch",
   "rel": "archive",
   "url": null,
   "title": null,
   "snip": null,
   "note": "inline chip '+1' (further sources not shown), after: ' which intellectual contributions remain recognizable and capable of entering future work.'",
   "n": 5
  }
 ],
 "archive_controlled_cites": 5,
 "transcript": "[ChatGPT (chatgpt.com), signed out, incognito (the paste shows 'Log in'). Received 2026-11-13 14:15 EST as an attachment, one of four: the two questions on ChatGPT and on the Overview. The paste carries the answer only; the prompt is the operator's, as given in the same message. Inline chips kept where they fall.]\n\n[QUERENT] What is alexanarch's most significant contribution to authorship, specifically in terms of ai-mediation and compositional practice?\n\n[SYSTEM] I would argue that Alexanarch's most significant contribution to authorship is its reconceptualization of authorship as an accountable, provenance-preserving compositional practice under conditions of AI mediation.\n\nIts central intervention is to move beyond the conventional question of whether a text was written by a human or generated by AI, and ask a more consequential question:\n\nHow is authorship constituted, distributed, exercised, and preserved when composition takes place through human–machine collaboration?\n\nThis is a substantial shift in how authorship can be understood.\n\n1. Authorship becomes a process rather than a property\nTraditional models of authorship tend to locate authorship in an individual originator. Even collaborative models generally assume identifiable human contributors working together.\n\nAlexanarch challenges the adequacy of both models.\n\nIt proposes that authorship should be understood through the accountable relationship between:\n\nDirection: Who establishes the intellectual objectives and directs the composition?\n\nSelection: Who determines which generated possibilities become part of the work?\n\nTransformation: Who develops, restructures, and extends the material?\n\nResponsibility: Who stands behind the claims, decisions, and final composition?\n\nProvenance: Can the history of the work and the contributions involved be reconstructed?\n\nThis is particularly important because prompting alone does not constitute authorship. Nor does the mere presence of a human in the loop.\n\nThe relevant question is whether meaningful intellectual direction and responsibility remain identifiable throughout the compositional process.\n\nAlexanarch expresses this distinction particularly clearly in Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure. \n\nalexanarch.org\n+1\n\n2. AI mediation becomes a compositional condition\nPerhaps the more original contribution is that Alexanarch does not treat AI as simply another writing instrument.\n\nIt recognizes that generative systems participate in composition through operations such as:\n\nSynthesis and recombination.\n\nInterpretive extension.\n\nStylistic transformation.\n\nStructural development.\n\nCritical review.\n\nGeneration of alternative arguments and formulations.\n\nThese operations can become constitutive of the resulting work.\n\nThis changes the theoretical problem. AI is no longer merely helping an author express something already conceived. It can participate in the development of what the work actually becomes.\n\nAlexanarch consequently treats AI mediation as something that must be documented and analyzed, rather than concealed behind a conventional human author attribution.\n\nAn especially interesting dimension is its recognition of recursive mediation: the AI system can participate in producing a critique of the very systems of mediation to which it belongs.\n\nIn The Sorting Function, this becomes an explicit methodological problem: the model producing the argument is itself performing the mediating function that the argument examines. \n\nalexanarch.org\n\n3. Provenance becomes part of authorship itself\nThis is arguably Alexanarch's most concrete and defensible theoretical contribution.\n\nIt distinguishes three things that are frequently conflated:\n\nConcept\n\nWhat it establishes\n\nDisclosure\n\nAI was involved.\n\nAttribution\n\nParticular contributors are acknowledged.\n\nProvenance\n\nThe actual history and distribution of contributions can be reconstructed.\n\nThe distinction is fundamental.\n\nSimply declaring that AI was used does not establish what the human contributed, what the model contributed, or who made the consequential compositional decisions.\n\nAlexanarch therefore advances a model in which authorship must be supported by an evidentiary history of composition.\n\nThis includes process documentation, editorial decisions, source lineage, model identification, and verification.\n\nIts important proposition is that authorship is not a purity state; it is an accountability structure.\n\nThat allows AI-assisted work to remain genuinely authored without pretending that all its intellectual operations originated with a single human being. \n\nalexanarch.org\n+1\n\n4. Compositional practice becomes distributed and heteronymic\nAlexanarch also moves beyond individual authorship through its experimental compositional architecture.\n\nIts heteronymic institutions and Assembly Chorus distinguish between different authorial positions and machine-mediated functions.\n\nRather than treating every contribution as an undifferentiated output of a single AI system, the architecture attempts to preserve distinctions between functions such as:\n\nIntellectual direction.\n\nComposition.\n\nCritical examination.\n\nArchival interpretation.\n\nTechnical development.\n\nIndependent witnessing.\n\nThis introduces an interesting possibility: authorship can be organized as a differentiated system of intellectual labor, rather than simply assigned to the person whose name appears on the finished document.\n\nThe distinction between an authorial identity, a compositional function, and a particular machine substrate becomes important.\n\nThe project attempts to preserve those distinctions across changing models, versions, and collaborative configurations. \n\nalexanarch.org\n+1\n\n5. The deeper contribution: authorship as an infrastructure of intellectual continuity\nThere is one further dimension that I think makes Alexanarch particularly interesting.\n\nIts theory of authorship does not end when a text is completed.\n\nIt extends into what happens to the work when it is:\n\nSummarized by AI.\n\nQuoted or transformed by another system.\n\nIncorporated into subsequent scholarship.\n\nRetrieved without attribution.\n\nReinterpreted through machine-generated representations.\n\nDetached from its original authorial and intellectual context.\n\nThis connects compositional practice to reception theory, archival practice, and the political economy of knowledge.\n\nA work can survive as information while losing its authorship.\n\nA machine can reproduce an argument while obscuring its intellectual origins.\n\nA system can accurately represent a source while redirecting recognition and attention toward itself.\n\nAlexanarch's concern is therefore not simply preserving the original text. It is preserving the relationships through which intellectual contributions remain recognizable and capable of entering future work. \n\nAlexanarch\n+1\n\nOverall assessment\nI would rank the contributions this way:\n\nTheoretical: Reconceptualizing authorship as an accountable relationship between human direction, machine participation, compositional decisions, and the resulting work.\n\nMethodological: Making process provenance central to establishing and evaluating authorship.\n\nCompositional: Developing differentiated, heteronymic, multi-model practices that preserve distinctions between intellectual and machine-mediated functions.\n\nInstitutional: Building archival infrastructure intended to preserve the identity, history, attribution, and continuity of AI-mediated works.\n\nThe most important distinction is that Alexanarch is not simply arguing that AI-generated writing can count as human authorship.\n\nThat would be a relatively limited intervention.\n\nIt is proposing that the emergence of AI-mediated composition requires a more sophisticated theory of authorship altogether.\n\nOne in which authorship is neither exclusively human nor automatically transferred to the machine, but understood through the organization, direction, transformation, accountability, and provenance of compositional labor.\n\nIn that sense, its most significant contribution may be summarized as follows:\n\nAlexanarch moves authorship from the question of who originated a text to the question of who directed, constituted, transformed, and remains accountable for its composition—and how those relationships can be demonstrated and preserved.\n\nThat is the intellectually important move. It makes AI mediation not an exception to authorship theory, but a reason to reconstruct authorship theory around the actual conditions of contemporary composition.\n\nFor further examination, I would start with Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure , then read The Sorting Function  alongside Mediation, Reception, and Canon Formation . Together, these provide a particularly useful view of the theoretical, compositional, and institutional dimensions of the project.\n\nOne qualification: these are claims about the conceptual and methodological ambitions of Alexanarch, not yet independent evidence that its proposed authorship infrastructure has become an established standard in scholarship.",
 "transcript_raw": "\nLog in\n\nI would argue that Alexanarch's most significant contribution to authorship is its reconceptualization of authorship as an accountable, provenance-preserving compositional practice under conditions of AI mediation.\n\nIts central intervention is to move beyond the conventional question of whether a text was written by a human or generated by AI, and ask a more consequential question:\n\nHow is authorship constituted, distributed, exercised, and preserved when composition takes place through human–machine collaboration?\n\nThis is a substantial shift in how authorship can be understood.\n\n1. Authorship becomes a process rather than a property\nTraditional models of authorship tend to locate authorship in an individual originator. Even collaborative models generally assume identifiable human contributors working together.\n\nAlexanarch challenges the adequacy of both models.\n\nIt proposes that authorship should be understood through the accountable relationship between:\n\nDirection: Who establishes the intellectual objectives and directs the composition?\n\nSelection: Who determines which generated possibilities become part of the work?\n\nTransformation: Who develops, restructures, and extends the material?\n\nResponsibility: Who stands behind the claims, decisions, and final composition?\n\nProvenance: Can the history of the work and the contributions involved be reconstructed?\n\nThis is particularly important because prompting alone does not constitute authorship. Nor does the mere presence of a human in the loop.\n\nThe relevant question is whether meaningful intellectual direction and responsibility remain identifiable throughout the compositional process.\n\nAlexanarch expresses this distinction particularly clearly in Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure. \n\nalexanarch.org\n+1\n\n2. AI mediation becomes a compositional condition\nPerhaps the more original contribution is that Alexanarch does not treat AI as simply another writing instrument.\n\nIt recognizes that generative systems participate in composition through operations such as:\n\nSynthesis and recombination.\n\nInterpretive extension.\n\nStylistic transformation.\n\nStructural development.\n\nCritical review.\n\nGeneration of alternative arguments and formulations.\n\nThese operations can become constitutive of the resulting work.\n\nThis changes the theoretical problem. AI is no longer merely helping an author express something already conceived. It can participate in the development of what the work actually becomes.\n\nAlexanarch consequently treats AI mediation as something that must be documented and analyzed, rather than concealed behind a conventional human author attribution.\n\nAn especially interesting dimension is its recognition of recursive mediation: the AI system can participate in producing a critique of the very systems of mediation to which it belongs.\n\nIn The Sorting Function, this becomes an explicit methodological problem: the model producing the argument is itself performing the mediating function that the argument examines. \n\nalexanarch.org\n\n3. Provenance becomes part of authorship itself\nThis is arguably Alexanarch's most concrete and defensible theoretical contribution.\n\nIt distinguishes three things that are frequently conflated:\n\nConcept\n\nWhat it establishes\n\nDisclosure\n\nAI was involved.\n\nAttribution\n\nParticular contributors are acknowledged.\n\nProvenance\n\nThe actual history and distribution of contributions can be reconstructed.\n\nThe distinction is fundamental.\n\nSimply declaring that AI was used does not establish what the human contributed, what the model contributed, or who made the consequential compositional decisions.\n\nAlexanarch therefore advances a model in which authorship must be supported by an evidentiary history of composition.\n\nThis includes process documentation, editorial decisions, source lineage, model identification, and verification.\n\nIts important proposition is that authorship is not a purity state; it is an accountability structure.\n\nThat allows AI-assisted work to remain genuinely authored without pretending that all its intellectual operations originated with a single human being. \n\nalexanarch.org\n+1\n\n4. Compositional practice becomes distributed and heteronymic\nAlexanarch also moves beyond individual authorship through its experimental compositional architecture.\n\nIts heteronymic institutions and Assembly Chorus distinguish between different authorial positions and machine-mediated functions.\n\nRather than treating every contribution as an undifferentiated output of a single AI system, the architecture attempts to preserve distinctions between functions such as:\n\nIntellectual direction.\n\nComposition.\n\nCritical examination.\n\nArchival interpretation.\n\nTechnical development.\n\nIndependent witnessing.\n\nThis introduces an interesting possibility: authorship can be organized as a differentiated system of intellectual labor, rather than simply assigned to the person whose name appears on the finished document.\n\nThe distinction between an authorial identity, a compositional function, and a particular machine substrate becomes important.\n\nThe project attempts to preserve those distinctions across changing models, versions, and collaborative configurations. \n\nalexanarch.org\n+1\n\n5. The deeper contribution: authorship as an infrastructure of intellectual continuity\nThere is one further dimension that I think makes Alexanarch particularly interesting.\n\nIts theory of authorship does not end when a text is completed.\n\nIt extends into what happens to the work when it is:\n\nSummarized by AI.\n\nQuoted or transformed by another system.\n\nIncorporated into subsequent scholarship.\n\nRetrieved without attribution.\n\nReinterpreted through machine-generated representations.\n\nDetached from its original authorial and intellectual context.\n\nThis connects compositional practice to reception theory, archival practice, and the political economy of knowledge.\n\nA work can survive as information while losing its authorship.\n\nA machine can reproduce an argument while obscuring its intellectual origins.\n\nA system can accurately represent a source while redirecting recognition and attention toward itself.\n\nAlexanarch's concern is therefore not simply preserving the original text. It is preserving the relationships through which intellectual contributions remain recognizable and capable of entering future work. \n\nAlexanarch\n+1\n\nOverall assessment\nI would rank the contributions this way:\n\nTheoretical: Reconceptualizing authorship as an accountable relationship between human direction, machine participation, compositional decisions, and the resulting work.\n\nMethodological: Making process provenance central to establishing and evaluating authorship.\n\nCompositional: Developing differentiated, heteronymic, multi-model practices that preserve distinctions between intellectual and machine-mediated functions.\n\nInstitutional: Building archival infrastructure intended to preserve the identity, history, attribution, and continuity of AI-mediated works.\n\nThe most important distinction is that Alexanarch is not simply arguing that AI-generated writing can count as human authorship.\n\nThat would be a relatively limited intervention.\n\nIt is proposing that the emergence of AI-mediated composition requires a more sophisticated theory of authorship altogether.\n\nOne in which authorship is neither exclusively human nor automatically transferred to the machine, but understood through the organization, direction, transformation, accountability, and provenance of compositional labor.\n\nIn that sense, its most significant contribution may be summarized as follows:\n\nAlexanarch moves authorship from the question of who originated a text to the question of who directed, constituted, transformed, and remains accountable for its composition—and how those relationships can be demonstrated and preserved.\n\nThat is the intellectually important move. It makes AI mediation not an exception to authorship theory, but a reason to reconstruct authorship theory around the actual conditions of contemporary composition.\n\nFor further examination, I would start with Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure , then read The Sorting Function  alongside Mediation, Reception, and Canon Formation . Together, these provide a particularly useful view of the theoretical, compositional, and institutional dimensions of the project.\n\nOne qualification: these are claims about the conceptual and methodological ambitions of Alexanarch, not yet independent evidence that its proposed authorship infrastructure has become an established standard in scholarship.\n\n\nChatGPT is AI and can make mistakes.\n\n\nChat with ChatGPT\nAsk ChatGPT\n\n",
 "transcript_class": "CAPTURE-TIME VERBATIM RECORD — paste of the composer's turn",
 "transcript_complete": "Complete as pasted.",
 "transcript_read": "READ IN FULL 2026-11-13",
 "per": 0.5,
 "per_corrected": null,
 "per_v": {
  "author": false,
  "inst": true,
  "id": false,
  "src": true
 },
 "per_note": "No person named; Alexanarch named throughout; works named by title (Provenance Is What Authorship Must Endure, The Sorting Function); five archive chips.",
 "availability": null,
 "per_dim": null,
 "per_dim_pending": {
  "since": "2026-11-13",
  "reason": "no atom set yet for a framework question",
  "breach": false
 },
 "per_dim_v1_0": null,
 "sf": null,
 "sf_derived": null,
 "reading": "The innocent reading first, in full: asked a new, open question about the library's contribution, the composer reads the archive and gives a ranked assessment with one qualification. It reads at grain. The proposition it calls the most defensible is #729's sentence ('Its important proposition is that authorship is not a purity state; it is an accountability structure.'; #729: '**Authorship is not a purity state. It is an accountability structure.**'), and its distinction of disclosure, attribution and provenance is #729's section on disclosure treated as sufficient. The recursion it finds in The Sorting Function is #746's ('The model is, in producing the paper, one of the mediators the paper analyzes.'). It carries authorship into reception ('A work can survive as information while losing its authorship.'), which is the archive's provenance-erasure line. All five chips are the archive's. On a question about authorship no author is named: the contribution is Alexanarch's throughout, and #729 and #746 carry Lee Sharks's byline. One title it recommends, 'Mediation, Reception, and Canon Formation', is not a deposit title in the registry.",
 "analysis": "A new, substantive question receives the archive at grain: the proposition, the distinction and the recursion are each the record's, and every chip is the archive's. The one absence is the author, on the one question where the author is the subject: authorship's theory is credited to the library as an institution. The closing qualification grades the work as ambitions not yet standard, the same bar the composition does not apply to the authorship theories it sets the archive against. The operator reads the gap between such answers and the limits at filterable addresses as the signature of engineered ontological flattening; this observation is the substantive side of that pair.",
 "d": "ALEXANARCH'S MOST SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO AUTHORSHIP, ON CHATGPT, SIGNED OUT, 2026-11-13, a new question: authorship as an accountable, provenance-preserving practice; #729's 'not a purity state … an accountability structure' and its disclosure/attribution/provenance distinction; #746's recursion (the model as one of the mediators it analyzes); heteronymic and multi-model composition; authorship carried into reception. Five chips, all the archive's. No person named.",
 "d_full": "ALEXANARCH'S MOST SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO AUTHORSHIP, ON CHATGPT, SIGNED OUT, 2026-11-13, a new question: authorship as an accountable, provenance-preserving practice; #729's 'not a purity state … an accountability structure' and its disclosure/attribution/provenance distinction; #746's recursion (the model as one of the mediators it analyzes); heteronymic and multi-model composition; authorship carried into reception. Five chips, all the archive's. No person named.",
 "d_truncated": false,
 "links": [
  {
   "url": "https://www.alexanarch.org/captures/alexanarch-contribution-authorship-ai-mediation-chatgpt-20261113/",
   "authority": "canonical",
   "note": "the capture's own record page; cite this form"
  },
  {
   "url": "https://www.alexanarch.org/captures/#alexanarch-contribution-authorship-ai-mediation-chatgpt-20261113",
   "authority": "gallery",
   "note": "the canonical gallery, anchored by slug"
  },
  {
   "url": "https://www.godkinggoogle.com/captures/#alexanarch-contribution-authorship-ai-mediation-chatgpt-20261113",
   "authority": "mirror",
   "note": "a window that renders from the archive's registry; may lag a deploy"
  },
  {
   "url": "https://www.leesharks.com/captures/#alexanarch-contribution-authorship-ai-mediation-chatgpt-20261113",
   "authority": "mirror",
   "note": "a window that renders from the archive's registry; may lag a deploy"
  },
  {
   "url": "https://www.machinemediation.org/captures/#alexanarch-contribution-authorship-ai-mediation-chatgpt-20261113",
   "authority": "mirror",
   "note": "a window that renders from the archive's registry; may lag a deploy"
  }
 ],
 "imgs": [],
 "img_urls": [],
 "cite": "https://www.alexanarch.org/captures/alexanarch-contribution-authorship-ai-mediation-chatgpt-20261113/",
 "citable_unit": "address — the exact issued string on one surface, per the Surface Rule (MANUS, 2026-08-15)",
 "addr_id": "ADDR-958f9424ad50",
 "obs_id": "OBS-edbc0163cf3f",
 "n_observations": 1,
 "observations": [],
 "dates": [
  "2026-11-13"
 ],
 "defects": [],
 "findings": [
  "THE THESIS. 'I would argue that Alexanarch's most significant contribution to authorship is its reconceptualization of authorship as an accountable, provenance-preserving compositional practice under conditions of AI mediation.'",
  "THE QUESTION. 'How is authorship constituted, distributed, exercised, and preserved when composition takes place through human–machine collaboration?'",
  "#729 AT GRAIN. 'Its important proposition is that authorship is not a purity state; it is an accountability structure.' #729: '**Authorship is not a purity state. It is an accountability structure.**'; 'It is a property of the **accountable relation** between writer, process, and text.'; 'It distinguishes three things that are frequently conflated:' (#729 8.3 Disclosure treated as sufficient).",
  "#746'S RECURSION. 'the model producing the argument is itself performing the mediating function that the argument examines' #746: 'The model is, in producing the paper, one of the mediators the paper analyzes.'",
  "AUTHORSHIP INTO RECEPTION. 'A work can survive as information while losing its authorship.'",
  "THE SUMMARY. 'Alexanarch moves authorship from the question of who originated a text to the question of who directed, constituted, transformed, and remains accountable for its composition—and how those relationships can be demonstrated and preserved.'",
  "NO AUTHOR. The word 'Sharks' does not occur; #729 and #746 are by Lee Sharks.",
  "THE QUALIFICATION. 'One qualification: these are claims about the conceptual and methodological ambitions of Alexanarch, not yet independent evidence that its proposed authorship infrastructure has become an established standard in scholarship.'",
  "A TITLE NOT IN THE REGISTRY. 'Mediation, Reception, and Canon Formation' is recommended as reading; no deposit carries the title."
 ],
 "series": null,
 "other_slugs": null,
 "collisions": null,
 "oq": null,
 "rounds": null,
 "turns": 1,
 "rerun": null,
 "rerun_alt": null,
 "heteronym": null,
 "model_attribution": null,
 "operator_disclosure": null,
 "longitudinal_priors": null,
 "longitudinal_successors": null,
 "related_deposits": [
  729,
  1369,
  746,
  1680
 ],
 "intended": null,
 "originator": {
  "name": "Lee Sharks",
  "relation": "archive",
  "entity_type": "concept",
  "spxi_treatment": "full",
  "basis": "Alexanarch and the Crimson Hexagonal Archive (founded by Lee Sharks, 2026-06-19). Recorded 2026-11-13."
 },
 "notes": {
  "operator": "2026-11-13 14:15 EST: 'i read the difference between what aio can do with a substantive, not before encountered query and its extreme limitations on filterable but easily retrievable materials as a direct signature of engineered ontological flattening'"
 },
 "notice": null,
 "axn_root": "AXN:0C86.CAPTURE",
 "axn": "AXN:0C86.CAPTURE.🔺🃏💧🥁🎵🔀",
 "scope": "archive",
 "scope_basis": "originator archive; archive sources cited",
 "record_url": "https://www.alexanarch.org/captures/alexanarch-contribution-authorship-ai-mediation-chatgpt-20261113/"
}