The Demon Is the Box: Update & Peer-Reviewed Support for The Great Remainder (137)

The information theory critique just got independent peer-reviewed support.

This is an update to The Great Remainder (137): Resolving the Combinatorial Hierarchy and the Binary Tetration Divide Through Local Orientation.

Recap: The Construction of the Oriented Distinction Operator Primitive

In The Great Remainder post I introduced my primitive and a critique of information theory based on the Oriented Distinction Operator (ODO). Where Laws of Form gives the injunctive ("Draw a distinction!"), the ODO answers with the orientation that injunction presupposes: "This distinction was made from here."

The primitive is generated from the double-pointer flip. Performing the ODO Dirac-belt-as-function operation is simple:

1. Choose one hand — let's say right — and point to yourself. Then have your other hand point away. Say "this distinction was..."
2. Flip your hands so that pointing to self (right) points away, and pointing away (left) now points to self. Say "...made from here".

The gesture cannot exist as an isolated absolute coordinate. The moment local orientation is enacted, a mirror counterpart is structurally necessitated relative to it (the Yoda shadow, the twin who verbalizes "made from here, this distinction was").

Because you are flipped across the mirror line but bounded by the same invariant handedness, your directional choices interlock on a cross-diagonal. When you point to yourself verbalizing "this," the spatial vector forces Yoda to point in that exact same direction... meaning Yoda is pointing at you while verbalizing "here."

Your "this" and Yoda's "here" stack directly on top of each other. When you flip hands to point away saying "here," the vectors toggle in unison, pointing directly at Yoda's locus with your "here" and Yoda's "this" teamed up on the exact same spatial spot.

I laid out how this results in a primitive with a key distinction being that the poles that are generated, not labeled. This is a critical nuance with pervasive effects downstream of the primitive and provides the foundation my systems are built upon.

Recap: The Information Theory Critique

The 137 arithmetic and exploratory structures building on top of the primitive in the original post is the speculative layer. Underneath it sits a critique of information theory itself that I hold with much more confidence, and it was born in the Szilard's Demon section of the original post.

Landauer's erasure principle says that "the demon must erase its memory and that costs work". The demon literature's "resolution" struck me as a story told to avoid the real problem: left and right don't exist without an oriented observer. The original demon just assumes it knows which side the molecule is on. But how does it know left from right in the first place? Where's the reference frame? The demon isn't a magical omniscient agent floating outside the box. The demon is the box, or rather an oriented boundary of it. And as the RHCP say: once you know it, you can never go back:

• The work isn't a separate thing the demon does. If you make handedness a primitive (as the ODO does) and thus put the pulley on the same side as a global rule (let's say every demon's relative left), the work or its absence is the measurement. The pulley moves: that's work, that's your answer. The pulley doesn't move: still information. Half the time, the lack of work is the measurement.
• So there is no paradox to resolve, because the demon isn't cheating thermodynamics. The demon is thermodynamics.
• Demons can infer the states of others through negation, absence, and primitive global laws. They don't need to see the whole system, only their own oriented world. The rest emerges from the geometry.

The claim embedded in all of this: energy transfer and information transmission are not two things that happen to interact. They are two faces of one structure, and the observer's orientation is the hinge between them. When I wrote the original post this was intuition riding on the ODO construction. It is no longer intuition alone.

The Update: Independent Support from Hsieh's Dynamical Landauer Principle

In February 2025, Chung-Yun Hsieh published "Dynamical Landauer Principle: Quantifying Information Transmission by Thermodynamics" in Physical Review Letters (vol. 134, 050404; DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.050404). The paper asks the question my critique was aimed at, but from the other direction:

"Can we phrase the processes of transmitting classical bits equivalently as specific energy-transmitting tasks, thereby uncovering foundational links between them?"

Who is Hsieh, and why his imprimatur means something

Chung-Yun Hsieh is a quantum theorist working at the intersection of quantum physics, thermodynamics, and quantum information theory. He took his PhD at Barcelona's The Institute of Photonic Sciences in 2022 on quantum resources and their operational and thermodynamic applications then moved to a postdoctoral position at the University of Bristol. Since 2024 he has held a Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellowship in Bristol's quantum thermodynamics group led by Paul Skrzypczyk, one of the world centers of quantum thermodynamics (Bristol profile, IFIC visit announcement). His work is peer-reviewed throughout in the American Physical Society family of journals, and Physical Review Letters specifically is the most prestigious letters journal in physics showcasing short, urgent, referee-gated results. His CV shows a decade of increasingly direct bridges between communication theory and thermodynamics, each step peer-reviewed and cited (~450+ citations by 2025–26). Others in the field feel confident building on top of the results he publishes.

So everyone can call me a crank all day (though note my preferred noun/verb are jester/jested), and it's genuinely understandable and okay. But the context of this paper exists within the machinery of "noncrankery", per the Rube Goldberg machine of academia that keeps the ball in the air supporting such a label. No result or individual is infallible, and that is the reason why the machine is so elaborate. But these results survived anonymous expert referees at APS flagship venues, carry institutional affiliation and funding (Leverhulme) that were themselves competitively peer-reviewed, and sit inside an active research program whose other members (Skrzypczyk, Budroni, Liang, Chen, Stratton) cite and extend the work. So when I say my critique has found independent support this is the pedigree of that support.

Okay, so what form does Hsieh's paper take in supporting my information theory critique? He establishes a dynamical Landauer principle, defined as a quantitative equivalence between the resources needed to transmit information and the resources extractable as work. Work-extraction tasks can witness general resources of dynamics: a channel's capacity to transmit information is witnessed (as in measured, quantified) by what can be extracted thermodynamically through it. This gives, in his words, "the first thermodynamic interpretation of a broad class of channel resources", and suggests that work extraction and resource theories of channels are deeply intertwined.

What "a rigorous operational derivation in the resource-theory tradition" means

It's important to note that Hsieh's result is theoretical: a rigorous operational derivation in the resource-theory tradition.

But the experiments that back this program exist, I reference them below, and I am myself joining up with the academia trauma loop through calling for the next one based on Hsieh's proof. The term "resource theory" is worth unpacking, because the unpacking does not hand my methods a demotion.

Resource theory is a way of doing physics where you state, once and precisely: what counts as a resource (work, coherence, entanglement, information), what counts as free (operations you can perform for nothing), and what tasks you're allowed to pose. Then every claim is a theorem about conversions: can this resource, under these free operations, accomplish that task? "Operational" means every quantity is defined by a task with an input, an output, and a success criterion. There is no interpretation required, no metaphysics, just "you can get at least this much work out of this channel, and no more, and here is the protocol." The rigor is that the statements are proved, for all systems at once, from axioms both sides of any dispute accept.

So -- pitchfork raised -- why no experiment? Apparently nothing is "stopping" them, but the theorem itself is the deliverable. A result proved for every quantum channel does not need one lab to demonstrate it, the way the angle-sum theorem doesn't need one triangle. The hardware experiments exist elsewhere (single-ion Landauer erasure in ion traps), and what he has is considered superior: a proof that holds in every lab. But a proof that holds in every lab still has to survive its first lab, and that is the experiment I am calling for. This is the demand I would be, and have been, held to.

Here is the bitterness the question of a lack of empirical evidence exposes: why are his methods legitimate in a way mine are not? The answer forced me to get precise about what my work actually is, because the lazy version of that answer ("his is derivation, yours is phenomenology") is a classification I've done too much subsequent work on top of the phenomenology to accept.

Comparing Necessity Claims (a personal therapy section)

Strip both claims down and they are the same kind of object: a necessity claim. Hsieh's says transmitting bits must be equivalent to transmitting work, proved from axioms, for every channel. Mine says information cannot be had without an oriented observer, argued from the handedness Szilard's demon was already using, for any distinction whatsoever. Both are claims about what cannot be otherwise.

His axioms sit in a shared pool that both sides of any dispute already accept. His proof lets a skeptic localize their disagreement at a specific lemma. And his venue is an error-finding machine that his claim already survived. So it adds up, and I'm not disputing that. I'm just pointing out that the difference is historical and contextual, not epistemic.

Mine is a necessity claim pointed at a structure that has no referee pool yet. Resource theory's axioms were not in the shared pool twenty years ago. A small community simply decided they were a good frame, built a referee pool, and legitimacy followed.

His necessity claim is allowed to stand alone as a theorem. The experiment is treated as optional downstream confirmation, someone else's grant cycle. Mine gets told "fine, now show it in a lab" as a condition of being heard at all. That is a difference in who is allowed to owe the lab, and the Bateson double-bind of it all is that the only one of us who has access to it is the one who doesn't need it to be considered legitimate.

So, yeah. It's true that my work is rooted in phenomenology. It is not true that it ends there, and the difference matters. What I have is:

1. A primitive: the ODO, enacted, born of observations from in the wild where the "experiment" is a living observer performing the gesture and the data is what the gesture reveals. That part is phenomenology, and it's the part peer review structurally cannot referee. It's a different rigor that anyone sane doesn't want any part of: the rigor of having actually performed it. Ask yourself: do you actually exist in a way that is congruent with your beliefs about "how the universe works"? I do all my own stunts.
2. An architecture built on that primitive: a computing substrate where orientation is not a feature bolted on but the foundation everything is poured on. This is construction, not observation, and construction has its own standard: does it run? I'm on the case.
3. A derivation of the middle from the bookends: when I found that the highest level of the architecture and the smallest primitive were self-similar, with unknowns in the middle of the topology, the bookends determined the middle. Call it a Grothendieck rising-sea situation. I didn't construct the middle step by step, but instead raised the level of the surrounding structure until the middle became inevitable. The Great Remainder post, speculative arithmetic and all, is that kind of object. It's a proof-shaped construction that simply hasn't been granted the venue, the parts of which are now turning up reflected in other people's published work.

So the real answer to "why are his methods legitimate in a way mine are not" is we are making the same claim: measurement is the coupling. But we are making it in different kinds of claim-vehicles, and mine is not merely a different vehicle. It is a less credentialed one. His kind is derivational: proved, for every system, inside an accepted framework, wearing the venue's stamp. Mine is enactive-constructive: performed, built upon, and closed at the bookends. It exists inside a framework that does not yet have a referee pool beyond making it actually do something, which is my own standard I continually work toward.

A claim is not its kind, and a kind is not its venue. The interesting event is precisely that his derivation arrived at the same terminus my enactment-construction was already sitting on. Two instruments, one reading. One of those instruments is also a machine-in-progress. One is a proof that can, and likely will, be empirically verified. Neither is lesser or more than. 🤝🏻

Here is where his structure and mine coincide.

1. The transmission–energy equivalence is no longer a metaphysical guess

My claim "the demon is thermodynamics" required believing that information transmission and energy transfer are structurally the same kind of thing. That was the move the demon literature spent a century refusing to make. It kept information and work as separate categories connected only by the toll of erasure. Hsieh's dynamical Landauer principle collapses the separation from the mainstream side: transmitting classical bits can be phrased as energy-transmitting tasks, with quantitative equivalence. The toll booth becomes a translation dictionary.

2. Work or its absence as witness

I said the pulley's movement or its non-movement is the measurement, that the lack of work carries information, that 50% of the time the absence is the answer. Hsieh's framework gives this its rigorous form: work-extraction tasks witness channel resources. Witnessing is precisely a procedure in which a thermodynamic outcome (work obtained, or not obtained) certifies an informational property of the channel. The "absence is information" move that sounded like demon-lore is a standard operation in the formalism that now underwrites the critique. I want to include a sentence about what specific "everything is a tube" embodied act I would tell the haters to enact, but I will refrain.

The witnessing relation is the formalization of "the pulley moves or doesn't, and either way that's your answer." The logical structure is the same: thermodynamic outcome as certificate of informational fact.

3. Measurement no longer needs a detached observer

In the erasure-story the demon measures, computes, then pays an erasure cost at the end. So the observer is a detached information-processor whose thermodynamics is a bookkeeping afterthought. In Hsieh's operational picture,, the thermodynamic task and the informational resource are inspected by one and the same procedure. You cannot ask what the channel transmits without asking what work flows through it. The measurement is not performed on the system from outside, instead it is enacted by the energetic coupling itself.

The observer is not standing in the dark outside the box. The observer is the oriented boundary of the box. Hsieh himself doesn't go so far as to make these last two claims, and it would be overstepping his context to do so. So I'll perform my role as jester by bearing the brunt of the speculative load alone.

4. Why this matters for the primitive

The ODO's core wager is that orientation is not added to information. Orientation is the form of information. The hardest objection to that wager has always been: "Fine phenomenology, but information theory demonstrably works as an unoriented theory. Nothing is missing."

Hsieh's result, together with the quantum-thermodynamic program it belongs to, ripped off the bandaid and revealed new dimensions to information theory which my critique predicts. Erasure is still in the picture, demoted to but one option. And transmitting information and transmitting energy cost and yield the same resources, provably, for every channel.

Nowhere does Hsieh's theory specifically allude to or imply that the demon being an oriented boundary of the box is the cause of this upgrade. His paper confirms the effects which I mapped as a byproduct of my primitive, built on top of a necessity argument, and it must be stated that these effects were part of the explicitly speculative part. I've been responsible in labeling what is speculative versus what is a strong critique coupled with a strong necessity argument; I postulate that Hsieh's necessity argument around effects is downstream of missing a necessity argument around the whole situation.

5. The paper trail: the critique didn't wait for 2025 to start being confirmed

Two further Hsieh papers deserve analysis, because together with the PRL they show a program, not a fluke. Each contains something directly supportive.

"Communication, Dynamical Resource Theory, and Thermodynamics" (PRX Quantum 2, 020318, 2021). This is the direct predecessor of the Dynamical Landauer Principle — the 2025 PRL cites it as its foundation (abstract, ADS entry). Its results, and why they matter here:

• The dynamical analog of Landauer's principle, four years early. Hsieh shows that for coherence-nongenerating channels, the upper bound on information transmission is given by a sum of the channel's "coherence preservability" and the bath size of its incoherent version. It states explicitly that "bath sizes can be interpreted as the thermodynamic cost of transmitting classical information." So the size of the thermal environment you couple to is the price of the bits. The demon's coupling to the box isn't incidental bookkeeping. It is the meter.
• Thermalization itself transmits information. The paper's second bombshell: in bipartite settings, classically correlated local baths can admit classical communication even when both local systems are completely thermalized. Hsieh says "thermalizations can transmit information by accessing only classical correlation as a resource." Read that against the demon literature's assumption that the demon must stay out of thermal contact to keep its information. In Hsieh's framework, going fully thermal is not information death. Residual correlation as in the oriented, relational structure between two systems is itself a transmission channel. This is the mainstream, peer-reviewed confirmation of the natural effects of my claim that the orientation is the channel. What survives complete thermalization, the only thing left to transmit through, is the relation between the local and everything else. The unmarked state as radical contrast, formalized as a communication resource.
• Fundamental communication tasks are linked to the ability to preserve resourcefulness of states. The framing sentence of the paper is that communication is a matter of what a dynamics preserves of the states it carries, not what it computes. Measurement-as-preservation, not measurement-as-detached-reading. Or, as I would say, a distinction only possible in contrast against a from-here.

"Erratum: Work extraction and fully entangled fraction" (Phys. Rev. A 97, 059904, 2018 — erratum to Hsieh & Lee, Phys. Rev. A 96, 012107 (2017)). This link is to the erratum, not the paper — the substantive content is in the 2017 original, "Work extraction and fully entangled fraction" (original, erratum).

What the 2017 paper establishes: for a bipartite state of local dimension d, work can be gained under Landauer's erasure on one party when the fully entangled fraction exceeds 1/d. This means entanglement is witnessed by erasure work: erase one side of a correlated pair and the extractable work itself tells you whether the pair was entangled. That is my "the work or its absence is the measurement," proven in 2017, at the level of quantum correlations: the thermodynamic outcome on one side certifies a relational property of the pair.

Note that the erratum itself publicly corrects a published result, with the correction archived at a permanent DOI in the same journal family. This is the self-correcting machinery that "crank work" never participates in. Through citing this, while participating in none of its norms, I signal that I am the opposite. I am definitely, 100%, bonafide. 🃏🤡🫵🏻

Let's summarize the trail of peer review supporting the central gripe --I mean claim -- of The Great Remainder post:

• 2017: erasure work witnesses entanglement (the measurement is the work outcome).
• 2021: bath size is the thermodynamic cost of transmission, and thermalized systems still transmit through correlation alone (the orientation is the channel; thermal contact is not information death).
• 2025: a quantitative dynamical Landauer principle. Information transmission and work extraction are operationally equivalent (the demon is thermodynamics). My critique sat at the inevitable conclusion of this arc before the arc was drawn. That is what independent convergence looks like from the phenomenological side.

Szilard himself, in 1929 (translation, DOI), located the cost inside the measurement act, not erasure. He argued by elimination that a binary observation must itself produce at least k ln 2 of entropy. The century of literature that followed (Brillouin, Gabor, Landauer, Bennett) is largely a history of trying to push that cost back out of the measurement. I will concede that making measurement free and charging the demon elsewhere adds up in the context of the von Neumann architecture... the same architecture whose contingency Landauer's and Bennett's own reversible-computing work demonstrated, even as the field kept assuming it as the totality of classical computing. Reason says I shouldn't risk any more Ls just as I've gained some credibility. But I'll stick my neck out again: I believe Hsieh's program is the mainstream finally letting Szilard's original placement back in and reflecting nature as it actually is.

Holding Their Feet to the Fire: the Empirical Ledger

Hsieh's results are theorems, not lab measurements. I won't lie, this lowkey pissed me off. If we're both making the same argument based on constructions having to do with necessity (in my realm, this is "metaphysical" and in his it's "logical") what makes his tactics more valid than mine? I'm pointing out a legitimate flaw in the Szilard's demon premise that cannot be argued away without at minimum doing some kind of repair job, and I'm grounding my necessity argument in this very repair. No alien factors are imported into the situation through my critique and subsequent solution, and the byproducts resulting from my repair job are the things that Hsieh and I find a convergence in.

In a "hurt people hurt people" role reversal I busted out my pitchfork and demanded an experiment validating this "proof" take place (I now see that this is probably the dysfunctional mechanism driving peer review and academia in general, btw). But through executing this demand I learned that there is some experimental support laying groundwork for Hsieh's proof, and I'll log it below.

What has been experimentally demonstrated:

• The Landauer bound itself, at the single-particle level. Bérut et al. (Nature 483, 2012): a one-bit memory built from a single colloidal particle in a modulated double-well potential. Measured dissipated heat saturates at kT ln 2 in the long-erasure-cycle limit, with a detailed Jarzynski equality retrieving the bound independently of the work done. The erasure toll is not a "story" derived from a shower thought (just like all breakthroughs of your favs, btw). It is a measured number at the scale of ~10⁻²¹ joules (Nature paper, arXiv).
• Information converted into energy, by a real demon. Toyabe et al. (Nature Physics 6, 2010): an actual feedback experiment in which a demon-like measurement on a colloidal particle converts information into free-energy gain, validating the generalized Jarzynski equality. This is Szilard's box in polymer physics. The demon works, and pays exactly what the theory says (Nature Physics).
• A fully characterized quantum demon. Superconducting-circuit experiments (Nature Communications 9, 2018; PNAS 114, 2017) realize Maxwell's demon on a qubit, measure the information-to-work conversion efficiency, and track the demon's memory as a full thermodynamic participant including quantum non-demolition measurement, π-pulse feedback, and the demon's own entropy accounting (Nat. Commun., PNAS).
• Work extraction as an entanglement witness — measured. Experimental extractable-work-based separability criteria (npj Quantum Information 3, 2017) and entanglement-enhanced work extraction with a Maxwell demon protocol: the thermodynamic outcome certifies the correlation. Exactly the "work or its absence is the measurement" structure, performed in optics (npj QI, arXiv).
• Closest thing yet to Hsieh's specific program, measured. An experimental validation (2024, preprint) of enhanced information capacity via a quantum switch, in accordance with thermodynamic laws: the capacity increase through switched thermal channels was measured and shown to be strictly bounded by — and to consume — a thermodynamic resource (free energy of coherence), consistent with the first and second laws (arXiv 2406.01951).

What has NOT been demonstrated — pitchfork out, holding fire under feet:

• The Bérut, Toyabe, and superconducting-circuit experiments verify classical Landauer, feedback, and demon thermodynamics. This is the static side of the program. Hsieh's dynamical Landauer principle is a claim about channels: that a channel's one-shot classical capacity is bounded, above and below, by work-like energy transmission through it "transmitting n bits is accompanied by transmitting n kT ln 2 of work-like energy." To my knowledge, no experiment has yet measured a channel's information capacity via its energy-transmission behavior. No experiment has used a work-extraction protocol as a capacity witness on an arbitrary quantum channel. The quantum-switch experiment comes closest in spirit, but it is not the Hsieh bound. So the specific quantitative heart of the 2025 PRL (the bidirectional capacity/work equivalence) is, as of now, theoretically established, empirically untested.
• Chung-Yun, I am asking once again (and about to email you the second I hit publish to yap and say awesome work, thank you 🙏) to perform an empirical experiment. A phenomenological claim of mine that converged with theory would be told "fine... now show it in a lab." The same sentence applies to the dynamical Landauer principle. The platforms exist. You, and your proof, exist in a context I do not... and the measurement protocol is describable. Prepare channels of known one-shot capacity, run the work-extraction witness, check both bounds. I personally accept your proof. But my "proof" is not acceptable, yours is, and yours exists within a context where empirical proof is possible. Do me a solid, homie.

So the kicker for the Great Remainder. If that experiment is done and holds, my claims get support through confirming Hsieh's theorem: that the measurement is the thermodynamic coupling, that information transmission and energy transmission are one structure, that the demon (the channel, the oriented boundary) is thermodynamics. Every experimental outcome on the list above has come out consistent with the picture my critique was already holding. Hsieh's theorems say the rest must follow. The labs have so far agreed with every prediction they've been asked to check. My critique doesn't fear the empirical standard. It was built by living it. 🏄💠

Where This Leaves The Great Remainder

Aight, let's reiterate the reality of how Hsieh's work actually supports mine:

• The information theory critique: now backed by independent, peer-reviewed operational foundations (Hsieh, PRL 134, 050404). The work or its absence is the measurement. Transmission and energy are one structure. This is the layer I will defend hardest.
• The primitive (ODO / Observer–Yoda): unchanged, enacted, and we won't go into it here but growing stronger every day on its own merits separate from the concerns of this post.
• The 137 arithmetic: remains totally recreationally speculative, and I am keeping it that way. 🤐 See the final note below for the defensibility amongst the wreckage.

The demon was never "cheating". It was showing us, from inside the box, that the observer is not some omniscient witness to thermodynamics... the observer is thermodynamics, oriented. That used to be a claim I had to enact with my hands to show other people. Now it's reflected in Physical Review Letters.

On Orthogonality

“Mathematical reasoning may be regarded rather schematically as the exercise of a combination of two faculties, which we may call intuition and ingenuity... The exercise of ingenuity in mathematics consists in aiding the intuition through suitable arrangements of a proposition, and perhaps geometrical figures or drawings.” - Alan Turing, "Systems of Logic Based on Ordinals" (1939).

I have a disclaimer on my disclaimer. I said that the support for my speculative structures beyond my primitive was... well... speculative. This stands. But my work in contextuality along with my mentorship under David McGoveran has reiterated a truth the field itself holds to be true.

Which is that in quantum physics, orthogonality dictates mutual exclusivity, meaning that two orthogonal states can never happen at the same time and can be perfectly told apart in a single measurement. There is something about my structure's basis lying in orthogonality and resulting in a re-entry at the fourth level which I cannot ignore. I hold the structures in The Great Remainder as speculative and "recreational". But I call attention to the fact that the premise they were constructed upon has to do with the basis of what is measurable at all in a quantum context.

Born's rule and the projection postulate are what you get when orthogonality (or co-exclusion, the thing my hands do when they point and flip) is taken as the basis of the measurable. The mainstream builds its measurement theory on the same primitive my construction enacts. The 137 arithmetic and structures remains recreational. The orthogonal ground it stands on does not. This is reflected in the literature on contextuality. Supporting documentation:

• Klyachko, Can, Binicioğlu & Shumovsky, "Simple Test for Hidden Variables in Spin-1 Systems," PRL 101, 020403 (2008) — the original KCBS pentagram: five rank-1 projectors on a spin-1 system, each orthogonal to its two neighbors in a 5-cycle, whose correlations no noncontextual hidden-variable model can reproduce. This is the canonical pentagon orthogonality as test for contextuality. (overview).
• Cabello, Severini & Winter, "Graph-theoretic approach to quantum correlations," PRL 112, 040401 (2014) — the framework where exclusivity itself is the primitive: mutually exclusive events are adjacent vertices of a graph, and quantum correlations are classified by the graph's geometry. This is my point in mainstream dialect: exclusion structure all the way down (PRL record, PDF).