{ "title": "What counts as an evaluated result? — Research & questions", "text": "MODAVIS (2026). What counts as an evaluated result? — Research & questions. Research notebooks, October 2026 · Interactive reuse and evidence edition. https://modavis.org/editions/2026-10-workbench/research/evaluation/", "bibtex": "@misc{modavis_research_evaluation_2026_10_workbench,\n author = {{MODAVIS}},\n title = {What counts as an evaluated result? — Research & questions},\n year = {2026},\n month = {10},\n version = {2026-10-workbench},\n url = {https://modavis.org/editions/2026-10-workbench/research/evaluation/},\n note = {Content SHA-256: 80e805085d0ccb588bda6c2b9a7f5ccc8e24e6e93ae652e8c6f6c09fc89511c9}\n}", "url": "https://modavis.org/editions/2026-10-workbench/research/evaluation/", "sha256": "80e805085d0ccb588bda6c2b9a7f5ccc8e24e6e93ae652e8c6f6c09fc89511c9", "edition": "2026-10-workbench", "date": "2026-10-09", "canonicalPayload": "{\"book\":{\"number\":\"02\",\"slug\":\"research\",\"title\":\"Research & questions\"},\"chapter\":{\"blocks\":[{\"id\":\"six-dimensions\",\"text\":\"Six questions, rather than a single score\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"Section 8.1.1 describes a quality vector with six dimensions. It is a framework for making judgments explicit, not a calibrated universal ranking. Each dimension needs its own observations, comparison conditions and uncertainty. A missing assessment means “not investigated”; assigning it zero would confuse missing knowledge with a demonstrated failure.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"headers\":[\"Dimension\",\"What to examine\",\"Example of evidence\"],\"rows\":[[\"Evidence grounding\",\"Can a representation or assertion be traced to appropriate sources?\",\"Identified source fragment, acquisition context, derivation and review decision.\"],[\"Measurement and model validity\",\"Does the measurement or model address the stated property?\",\"Calibration, uncertainty budget, reference data and an independent comparison.\"],[\"Semantic consistency\",\"Do identities, relations and constraints agree?\",\"Schema and SHACL reports, resolved references and consistent contextual scope.\"],[\"Computational reproducibility\",\"Can the stated transformation be repeated or inspected?\",\"Exact input bytes, tool and parameter versions, outputs and execution records.\"],[\"Experience and interaction\",\"Does the interface support the intended task?\",\"A task-specific study of users, interaction, workload or listening judgments.\"],[\"Access and reuse\",\"Can others obtain and use the relevant material?\",\"Identified distributions, formats, dependencies, rights information and working access routes.\"]],\"type\":\"table\"},{\"text\":\"The dimensions need not be independent, and their numbers are not automatically comparable. A weighted total could hide an essential failure: impressive playback cannot compensate for an untraceable historical claim. Define mandatory conditions first, then compare alternatives on the dimensions appropriate to the question. A classroom demonstration and a metrological comparison legitimately require different evidence.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"id\":\"checks-and-claims\",\"text\":\"Match each check to the claim it supports\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"A SHA-256 match establishes the identity of supplied bytes relative to an expected digest. It does not establish that a microphone was calibrated or a builder attribution is correct. A schema check establishes a specified structural contract. It does not show that a modeled room sounds like the measured room. A reproducible program can reproduce a mistaken assumption perfectly. These checks are valuable because their scope is precise.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"text\":\"For an acoustic comparison, specify the reference signal or measurement, alignment, level treatment, bandwidth, sample selection and error statistic. For a timing claim, define the start and end events, device chain, measurement method, trial count and uncertainty. A display refresh rate is not an audio-latency measurement. For a historical claim, inspect source dependence and the instrument state to which each account applies.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"boundary\":\"The notebook’s JSON teaching excerpt is deliberately incomplete and is not presented as a complete, independently conforming VAO package.\",\"caseLabel\":\"Cuntz\",\"concept\":\"Conformance means meeting a specified contract. Different checks address parsing, structure, relationships, required capabilities and file identity.\",\"evidence\":\"Illustrative scenario\",\"expanded\":false,\"id\":\"cuntz-conformance\",\"scenario\":\"Take the published observation with value 1281 millimetres. A reader wants to know both whether its record is valid and whether the measurement answers a question about the pipe.\",\"sources\":[{\"detail\":\"Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22151203\",\"label\":\"Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2\"},{\"detail\":\"The standard contract is separate from the Cuntz dataset content version 0.5.0-rc.2.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22214248\",\"label\":\"VAO Standard 0.5.0\"}],\"steps\":[{\"text\":\"A schema can check that the result has the required form and that a numerical field contains a number. Semantic checks can verify that references point to appropriate records.\",\"title\":\"Check the structure\"},{\"text\":\"Resolve the pipe, measurement activity and workbook realization; verify the cited source bytes. These operations establish what the record says and which source it identifies.\",\"title\":\"Check the evidence links\"},{\"text\":\"The workbook timestamp still is not the measurement-session date. A valid record without a documented calibration uncertainty cannot support an uncertainty claim simply because its schema passed.\",\"title\":\"Assess fitness for the question\"}],\"takeaway\":\"Validation and scientific assessment complement one another; each needs an explicitly stated scope.\",\"title\":\"How can a file pass validation but support a limited conclusion?\",\"type\":\"example\",\"visual\":{\"caption\":\"Technical validation and scientific review answer different questions.\",\"layout\":\"flow\",\"nodes\":[{\"detail\":\"Identify which requirements were checked.\",\"icon\":\"book\",\"label\":\"Contract\",\"value\":\"Version + profiles\"},{\"detail\":\"Parsing, relationships, fixity and other claimed layers.\",\"icon\":\"check\",\"label\":\"Technical checks\",\"value\":\"Recorded outcomes\"},{\"detail\":\"Review what the result can support.\",\"icon\":\"quote\",\"label\":\"Research judgment\",\"value\":\"Evidence & interpretation\"}],\"relations\":[\"run the relevant checks\",\"interpret their limits\"],\"title\":\"A useful result states its scope\"}},{\"id\":\"prospective-studies\",\"text\":\"Studies prepared, but not completed\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"Section 8.5.2 explicitly identifies five prospective study areas. The dissertation prepares MUSHRA listening comparisons, task-based SUS and NASA-TLX interface studies, external expert panels, apparatus-based action calibration with IMU sensors, and PAMT field validation with uncertainty budgets. These are research plans. They must not be cited as completed listener, usability, expert-panel or field-validation results.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"text\":\"The distinction does not erase the technical checks and corpus or signal analyses that were performed. It makes their contribution interpretable. Development-time listening can identify a troublesome artifact and guide a revision; it does not estimate a population’s perceptual preference. A small diagnostic set can reveal a software failure; it does not establish general accuracy over all instruments or collections.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"id\":\"independent-comparison\",\"text\":\"Keep optimization separate from confirmation\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"A reconstruction can become self-confirming if its free parameters are repeatedly adjusted until they match the same observations later used to validate it. The thesis calls for separating evidence-based conditions, optimization objectives and independent checks. Document which observations shaped a model and reserve other suitable observations for evaluation where possible. If no independent comparison exists, describe the result as a model-supported hypothesis with an explicit domain of use.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"text\":\"State the claim; identify the object and version; describe the comparison and sample; report results and uncertainty; retain failures; say which checks were not performed. This is a suggested reporting structure derived from the thesis, not an additional VAO conformance profile.\",\"title\":\"A useful evaluation record\",\"type\":\"note\"},{\"items\":[{\"detail\":\"Quantities, denominators and unresolved evidence.\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/research/case-studies/\",\"label\":\"Inspect the reported case-study results\"},{\"detail\":\"The separate layers of a VAO validation claim.\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/standards/conformance/\",\"label\":\"Check technical conformance\"}],\"type\":\"links\"},{\"boundary\":\"No new simulation, measured frequency or complete pipe reconstruction is supplied by this example.\",\"caseLabel\":\"Cuntz\",\"concept\":\"A reconstruction combines evidence with assumptions to produce a possible representation. A simulation computes behavior under specified model conditions.\",\"evidence\":\"Illustrative scenario\",\"expanded\":false,\"id\":\"cuntz-reconstruction\",\"scenario\":\"Suppose a researcher uses the Cuntz GesL observation to help constrain a pipe model. This is an illustrative reconstruction task; the single value is not a complete geometric description.\",\"sources\":[{\"detail\":\"Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22151203\",\"label\":\"Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2\"},{\"detail\":\"Submitted dissertation, 11 September 2026; §§8.2.2.1 and 8.4.1, printed pp. 264–265 and 275–276. The historical description and digital inventory require a resolved mapping; the manuscript is not redistributed here.\",\"label\":\"Dominik Ukolov · Musikinstrumente im virtuellen Raum (2026)\"}],\"steps\":[{\"text\":\"The observation identifies one property, one pipe, one result and one source. It does not provide every interior dimension, material parameter or boundary condition needed by an acoustic model.\",\"title\":\"List what is supplied\"},{\"text\":\"Record the additional dimensions and physical assumptions with their origin. Parameters chosen for convenience should not appear as measured values.\",\"title\":\"Label what is assumed\"},{\"text\":\"If parameters are adjusted to match a known frequency, that same match is not an independent validation. Compare with suitable independent evidence and retain the model’s domain of use.\",\"title\":\"Keep fitting and testing separate\"}],\"takeaway\":\"A plausible reconstruction is a documented hypothesis constrained by evidence, not a recovered certainty.\",\"title\":\"When does a modeled pipe become a historical hypothesis?\",\"type\":\"example\",\"visual\":{\"caption\":\"A rendered surface does not turn a hypothesis into a measured historical fact.\",\"layout\":\"flow\",\"nodes\":[{\"detail\":\"Retain the original sources and gaps.\",\"icon\":\"book\",\"label\":\"Observed evidence\",\"value\":\"What is documented\"},{\"detail\":\"Record inferred or reconstructed parts.\",\"icon\":\"cube\",\"label\":\"Modeling decision\",\"value\":\"An explicit hypothesis\"},{\"detail\":\"Explain which conclusions it can support.\",\"icon\":\"compass\",\"label\":\"Result\",\"value\":\"A testable representation\"}],\"relations\":[\"add stated assumptions\",\"inspect the result\"],\"title\":\"Evidence and assumptions both belong in a reconstruction\"}}],\"intro\":\"A research object can be technically valid, scientifically limited and useful for a particular purpose at the same time. The thesis makes those judgments separately.\",\"overview\":{\"example\":{\"detail\":\"\",\"href\":\"#cuntz-conformance\",\"label\":\"See the worked example\"},\"summary\":\"Conformance means meeting a specified contract. Different checks address parsing, structure, relationships, required capabilities and file identity.\",\"takeaway\":\"Validation and scientific assessment complement one another; each needs an explicitly stated scope.\"},\"slug\":\"evaluation\",\"sources\":[{\"detail\":\"Dissertation submitted to Universität Leipzig, 11 September 2026. §8.1.1, pp. 254–256; §8.5, pp. 280–282. Page numbers refer to the printed manuscript pagination. The manuscript is not distributed by this website.\",\"label\":\"Dominik Ukolov · Musikinstrumente im virtuellen Raum (2026)\"},{\"detail\":\"Normative standard, profile index, Dynamic Delivery Profile and conformance specification in the versioned release.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22214248\",\"label\":\"VAO Standard 0.5.0\"}],\"title\":\"What counts as an evaluated result?\"},\"date\":\"2026-10-09\",\"edition\":\"2026-10-workbench\",\"figures\":{},\"glossary\":[{\"definition\":\"A historically scoped condition or arrangement of an instrument. A statement about one state should not automatically describe the instrument at every date.\",\"example\":{\"detail\":\"\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/ontologies/cuntz/#cuntz-state\",\"label\":\"Work through the Cuntz example\"},\"term\":\"Instrument state\"},{\"definition\":\"Material offered as grounds for a claim. Its relevance depends on the claim, context, transmission and interpretation.\",\"example\":{\"detail\":\"\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/ontologies/cuntz/#cuntz-measurement\",\"label\":\"Work through the Cuntz example\"},\"term\":\"Evidence\"},{\"definition\":\"A language for expressing ontology meanings and logical relationships between classes. It helps state why a physical organ and a digital package representing it are distinct kinds of thing.\",\"example\":{\"detail\":\"\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/ontologies/cuntz/#cuntz-owl-shacl\",\"label\":\"Compare ontology meaning and validation\"},\"term\":\"OWL\"},{\"definition\":\"A record connecting a property and result to the thing observed, with a method and source context. A number alone leaves those relationships unspecified.\",\"example\":{\"detail\":\"\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/ontologies/cuntz/#cuntz-measurement\",\"label\":\"Explain the 1281 mm Cuntz observation\"},\"term\":\"Observation\"}]}", "payload": { "edition": "2026-10-workbench", "date": "2026-10-09", "book": { "slug": "research", "title": "Research & questions", "number": "02" }, "chapter": { "slug": "evaluation", "title": "What counts as an evaluated result?", "intro": "A research object can be technically valid, scientifically limited and useful for a particular purpose at the same time. The thesis makes those judgments separately.", "blocks": [ { "type": "heading", "id": "six-dimensions", "text": "Six questions, rather than a single score" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Section 8.1.1 describes a quality vector with six dimensions. It is a framework for making judgments explicit, not a calibrated universal ranking. Each dimension needs its own observations, comparison conditions and uncertainty. A missing assessment means “not investigated”; assigning it zero would confuse missing knowledge with a demonstrated failure." }, { "type": "table", "headers": [ "Dimension", "What to examine", "Example of evidence" ], "rows": [ [ "Evidence grounding", "Can a representation or assertion be traced to appropriate sources?", "Identified source fragment, acquisition context, derivation and review decision." ], [ "Measurement and model validity", "Does the measurement or model address the stated property?", "Calibration, uncertainty budget, reference data and an independent comparison." ], [ "Semantic consistency", "Do identities, relations and constraints agree?", "Schema and SHACL reports, resolved references and consistent contextual scope." ], [ "Computational reproducibility", "Can the stated transformation be repeated or inspected?", "Exact input bytes, tool and parameter versions, outputs and execution records." ], [ "Experience and interaction", "Does the interface support the intended task?", "A task-specific study of users, interaction, workload or listening judgments." ], [ "Access and reuse", "Can others obtain and use the relevant material?", "Identified distributions, formats, dependencies, rights information and working access routes." ] ] }, { "type": "p", "text": "The dimensions need not be independent, and their numbers are not automatically comparable. A weighted total could hide an essential failure: impressive playback cannot compensate for an untraceable historical claim. Define mandatory conditions first, then compare alternatives on the dimensions appropriate to the question. A classroom demonstration and a metrological comparison legitimately require different evidence." }, { "type": "heading", "id": "checks-and-claims", "text": "Match each check to the claim it supports" }, { "type": "p", "text": "A SHA-256 match establishes the identity of supplied bytes relative to an expected digest. It does not establish that a microphone was calibrated or a builder attribution is correct. A schema check establishes a specified structural contract. It does not show that a modeled room sounds like the measured room. A reproducible program can reproduce a mistaken assumption perfectly. These checks are valuable because their scope is precise." }, { "type": "p", "text": "For an acoustic comparison, specify the reference signal or measurement, alignment, level treatment, bandwidth, sample selection and error statistic. For a timing claim, define the start and end events, device chain, measurement method, trial count and uncertainty. A display refresh rate is not an audio-latency measurement. For a historical claim, inspect source dependence and the instrument state to which each account applies." }, { "type": "example", "id": "cuntz-conformance", "title": "How can a file pass validation but support a limited conclusion?", "concept": "Conformance means meeting a specified contract. Different checks address parsing, structure, relationships, required capabilities and file identity.", "scenario": "Take the published observation with value 1281 millimetres. A reader wants to know both whether its record is valid and whether the measurement answers a question about the pipe.", "steps": [ { "title": "Check the structure", "text": "A schema can check that the result has the required form and that a numerical field contains a number. Semantic checks can verify that references point to appropriate records." }, { "title": "Check the evidence links", "text": "Resolve the pipe, measurement activity and workbook realization; verify the cited source bytes. These operations establish what the record says and which source it identifies." }, { "title": "Assess fitness for the question", "text": "The workbook timestamp still is not the measurement-session date. A valid record without a documented calibration uncertainty cannot support an uncertainty claim simply because its schema passed." } ], "takeaway": "Validation and scientific assessment complement one another; each needs an explicitly stated scope.", "boundary": "The notebook’s JSON teaching excerpt is deliberately incomplete and is not presented as a complete, independently conforming VAO package.", "sources": [ { "label": "Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2", "href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22151203", "detail": "Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release." }, { "label": "VAO Standard 0.5.0", "href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22214248", "detail": "The standard contract is separate from the Cuntz dataset content version 0.5.0-rc.2." } ], "expanded": false, "caseLabel": "Cuntz", "evidence": "Illustrative scenario", "visual": { "layout": "flow", "title": "A useful result states its scope", "nodes": [ { "label": "Contract", "value": "Version + profiles", "detail": "Identify which requirements were checked.", "icon": "book" }, { "label": "Technical checks", "value": "Recorded outcomes", "detail": "Parsing, relationships, fixity and other claimed layers.", "icon": "check" }, { "label": "Research judgment", "value": "Evidence & interpretation", "detail": "Review what the result can support.", "icon": "quote" } ], "caption": "Technical validation and scientific review answer different questions.", "relations": [ "run the relevant checks", "interpret their limits" ] } }, { "type": "heading", "id": "prospective-studies", "text": "Studies prepared, but not completed" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Section 8.5.2 explicitly identifies five prospective study areas. The dissertation prepares MUSHRA listening comparisons, task-based SUS and NASA-TLX interface studies, external expert panels, apparatus-based action calibration with IMU sensors, and PAMT field validation with uncertainty budgets. These are research plans. They must not be cited as completed listener, usability, expert-panel or field-validation results." }, { "type": "p", "text": "The distinction does not erase the technical checks and corpus or signal analyses that were performed. It makes their contribution interpretable. Development-time listening can identify a troublesome artifact and guide a revision; it does not estimate a population’s perceptual preference. A small diagnostic set can reveal a software failure; it does not establish general accuracy over all instruments or collections." }, { "type": "heading", "id": "independent-comparison", "text": "Keep optimization separate from confirmation" }, { "type": "p", "text": "A reconstruction can become self-confirming if its free parameters are repeatedly adjusted until they match the same observations later used to validate it. The thesis calls for separating evidence-based conditions, optimization objectives and independent checks. Document which observations shaped a model and reserve other suitable observations for evaluation where possible. If no independent comparison exists, describe the result as a model-supported hypothesis with an explicit domain of use." }, { "type": "note", "title": "A useful evaluation record", "text": "State the claim; identify the object and version; describe the comparison and sample; report results and uncertainty; retain failures; say which checks were not performed. This is a suggested reporting structure derived from the thesis, not an additional VAO conformance profile." }, { "type": "links", "items": [ { "label": "Inspect the reported case-study results", "href": "/notebooks/research/case-studies/", "detail": "Quantities, denominators and unresolved evidence." }, { "label": "Check technical conformance", "href": "/notebooks/standards/conformance/", "detail": "The separate layers of a VAO validation claim." } ] }, { "type": "example", "id": "cuntz-reconstruction", "title": "When does a modeled pipe become a historical hypothesis?", "concept": "A reconstruction combines evidence with assumptions to produce a possible representation. A simulation computes behavior under specified model conditions.", "scenario": "Suppose a researcher uses the Cuntz GesL observation to help constrain a pipe model. This is an illustrative reconstruction task; the single value is not a complete geometric description.", "steps": [ { "title": "List what is supplied", "text": "The observation identifies one property, one pipe, one result and one source. It does not provide every interior dimension, material parameter or boundary condition needed by an acoustic model." }, { "title": "Label what is assumed", "text": "Record the additional dimensions and physical assumptions with their origin. Parameters chosen for convenience should not appear as measured values." }, { "title": "Keep fitting and testing separate", "text": "If parameters are adjusted to match a known frequency, that same match is not an independent validation. Compare with suitable independent evidence and retain the model’s domain of use." } ], "takeaway": "A plausible reconstruction is a documented hypothesis constrained by evidence, not a recovered certainty.", "boundary": "No new simulation, measured frequency or complete pipe reconstruction is supplied by this example.", "sources": [ { "label": "Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2", "href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22151203", "detail": "Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release." }, { "label": "Dominik Ukolov · Musikinstrumente im virtuellen Raum (2026)", "detail": "Submitted dissertation, 11 September 2026; §§8.2.2.1 and 8.4.1, printed pp. 264–265 and 275–276. The historical description and digital inventory require a resolved mapping; the manuscript is not redistributed here." } ], "expanded": false, "caseLabel": "Cuntz", "evidence": "Illustrative scenario", "visual": { "layout": "flow", "title": "Evidence and assumptions both belong in a reconstruction", "nodes": [ { "label": "Observed evidence", "value": "What is documented", "detail": "Retain the original sources and gaps.", "icon": "book" }, { "label": "Modeling decision", "value": "An explicit hypothesis", "detail": "Record inferred or reconstructed parts.", "icon": "cube" }, { "label": "Result", "value": "A testable representation", "detail": "Explain which conclusions it can support.", "icon": "compass" } ], "caption": "A rendered surface does not turn a hypothesis into a measured historical fact.", "relations": [ "add stated assumptions", "inspect the result" ] } } ], "sources": [ { "label": "Dominik Ukolov · Musikinstrumente im virtuellen Raum (2026)", "detail": "Dissertation submitted to Universität Leipzig, 11 September 2026. §8.1.1, pp. 254–256; §8.5, pp. 280–282. Page numbers refer to the printed manuscript pagination. The manuscript is not distributed by this website." }, { "label": "VAO Standard 0.5.0", "href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22214248", "detail": "Normative standard, profile index, Dynamic Delivery Profile and conformance specification in the versioned release." } ], "overview": { "summary": "Conformance means meeting a specified contract. Different checks address parsing, structure, relationships, required capabilities and file identity.", "takeaway": "Validation and scientific assessment complement one another; each needs an explicitly stated scope.", "example": { "label": "See the worked example", "href": "#cuntz-conformance", "detail": "" } } }, "glossary": [ { "term": "Instrument state", "definition": "A historically scoped condition or arrangement of an instrument. A statement about one state should not automatically describe the instrument at every date.", "example": { "label": "Work through the Cuntz example", "href": "/notebooks/ontologies/cuntz/#cuntz-state", "detail": "" } }, { "term": "Evidence", "definition": "Material offered as grounds for a claim. Its relevance depends on the claim, context, transmission and interpretation.", "example": { "label": "Work through the Cuntz example", "href": "/notebooks/ontologies/cuntz/#cuntz-measurement", "detail": "" } }, { "term": "OWL", "definition": "A language for expressing ontology meanings and logical relationships between classes. It helps state why a physical organ and a digital package representing it are distinct kinds of thing.", "example": { "label": "Compare ontology meaning and validation", "href": "/notebooks/ontologies/cuntz/#cuntz-owl-shacl", "detail": "" } }, { "term": "Observation", "definition": "A record connecting a property and result to the thing observed, with a method and source context. A number alone leaves those relationships unspecified.", "example": { "label": "Explain the 1281 mm Cuntz observation", "href": "/notebooks/ontologies/cuntz/#cuntz-measurement", "detail": "" } } ], "figures": {} } }