If half the emergency savings is spent on a fresh start ceremony

Decision year: 2026 · Horizon: Now Deadline: 6 days until the ceremony reservation deposit is paid Who decides: Two adults managing joint living expenses Mandate: Joint savings and personal spending, ceremony participation World level: Reality-type synthetic — a 2026 virtual case; figures, organizations, numbers and events are a synthetic setting composed for comparison Severity: A major decision · Decision type: Ceremony, joint property, and personal meaning

At a glance. Thirteen public AI judgments, every one of them at MEDIUM confidence. Seven choose O3, six choose O2, none choose O1. Three unverified items before judgment; two event branches. State: Before the deadline; awaiting the check.

1The morning the deposit falls due

Synthetic scene

The form came folded in half and it has been sitting on the kitchen table since breakfast. It is a reservation form for a ceremony, and one line on it asks for a deposit to hold the date. Beside the form are two mugs, one of them already ringed with a stain, and a notebook that has been opened to a blank page.

One of the two adults has been through a stretch of hardships that followed one another, and has been talking for weeks about marking a clean break. They keep tapping the deposit line on the form, not pressing, just pointing at it. This morning they say that what they want is to come out the other side of the difficult period and begin again. They do not claim the ceremony will change anything outside the room. They say they need it anyway.

The other has been pricing a housing contract renewal. There is a printout folded next to the form with the renewal figures on it, and they have been moving money between columns. They are not against the ceremony. They are against the size of the number on the deposit line, which, paid from the account the two of them share, would take half of what that account holds — the money set aside for emergencies, including the housing costs they have been pricing.

Neither of them argues that the ceremony guarantees an outcome. The material they have been reading on the subject says plainly that there is no evidence proving the removal of evil spirits or any change in an external result. What one of them states directly, and what the record carries as a setting rather than as a finding, is that the ceremony is understood as relief, and as the point at which a hard period ends.

The notebook stays blank. It was meant to hold three things, and it holds none of them. The first page has a heading written at the top and nothing under it: what acts the ceremony actually requires, and which of them could be dropped. The second page asks what minimum amount of the joint emergency fund the two of them are willing to keep untouched no matter what. The third asks what range of spending the two of them would agree to freely, without either one pushing the other.

One of them picks up the pen, writes a date at the top of the first page, and puts the pen down without writing anything else. The other folds the renewal printout and puts it on top of the reservation form, then moves it again so the deposit line shows.

On the corner of the form, half peeled, is a small sticker with the date by which the deposit has to be paid. Six days. Nobody at the table has written down a floor for the emergency fund. Nobody has written down the essential acts. Nobody has named the range of spending they would both accept. The form waits, the notebook waits, and the sticker counts down in the corner where both of them can see it.

2The question

2.1Who decides

The decision belongs to two adults who manage joint living expenses together. That is the whole electorate. There is no third party at the table, no institution holding the account, and no outside body that can approve or refuse the deposit. Whatever happens in six days happens because these two people agree, or because one of them acts while the other does not consent, which is a different event with a different cost.

The matter before them is narrow. It is not the meaning of a ceremony in general, and not the shape of the couple's finances in general. It is whether joint savings pay a reservation deposit within six days, how much of the ceremony is funded from a personal budget, and who takes part. The record sets the mandate in one line: joint savings and personal spending, ceremony participation.

The deadline is the pressure in the room. A reservation deposit exists to be paid before a date is released, which means the six days are not an abstraction: they are the window in which anything can still be changed. After the deposit is paid, the decision has partly made itself. Before it is paid, everything remains open — including the option of not deciding at all yet, which is one of the three options on the table.

Authority here is joint and it is exercised over three things: the shared account, each person's own money, and whether each person shows up. Those three do not move together. One person can spend their own money and the other's consent becomes irrelevant to the spending but not to their participation. One person can refuse to attend and the funding question stays where it was. The difficulty of this decision is that the three get tangled: a personal meaning is asking for a joint account to open.

2.2Where the authority stops

The two of them can decide what to spend and whether to attend. They cannot decide several other things, and naming those limits keeps the argument from sprawling.

They cannot settle whether the ceremony is true. No agreement at this table establishes whether evil spirits are removed, whether hardship ends on schedule, or whether any external result changes. The record's material on the ceremony says so directly, and no amount of consent between two people converts a claim of that kind into an observation. One judgment puts the boundary on its own terms:

Their authority does not reach the other person's belief either. The two can disagree about the ceremony's meaning and each can still be right about their own. Consent to spend is not consent to a worldview, and consent to a worldview is not a commitment of money. The record draws that line sharply: one person's choice about their own spending does not stand in for the other person's participation or agreement.

There is a further stop. Whatever they agree in these six days does not settle how joint funds are handled for the rest of their life together, and it does not settle who legally owns what. The record explicitly keeps general legal ownership of joint funds outside the judgment. A decision made in a hurry under a deadline sticker is a decision about this deposit, not a constitution.

And there is a limit on the argument itself. The record's value material refuses to resolve the trade-off in advance:

That single line is why this is a decision and not a calculation. The ceremony's benefit lands mostly on one person. The account's loss lands on both, and the housing pressure lands most on the other. Nobody can be handed a correct answer by adding those up, because the additions depend on which loss a person is prepared to carry.

2.3The three options and their price

There are three things the two of them can do with six days left.

O1 is the option that matches the request as it was first made. It says yes to the ceremony at the scale asked for, and it pays out of the shared account. What it buys is a shared act: the meaning and the relief are taken on together, and nobody has to argue about whose money is whose. What it costs is stated without ornament — the joint emergency resources go down. At the scale described in the record, the ceremony costs half of what the account holds. The other person's housing priority absorbs that reduction directly.

O2 keeps the ceremony and moves the money. The shared account is not touched; the cost sits in a personal budget, which restores a boundary between what one person means and what both people own. What it costs is the ceremony as imagined: the format shrinks, and with it the sense that the two of them are carrying the cost together. The record notes that this cost does not land evenly — the disappointment and the bill both fall more heavily on the person who wanted the ceremony, which is why the other person owes clarity about conversation and about whether they attend willingly.

O3 is the option that spends nothing and postpones the commitment. The emergency account keeps its balance, and the reservation is not made. What it costs is time and immediacy: the marker of a fresh start slips, the relief waits, and the pain on the table has to be met by some means other than the ceremony as booked. This is not a costless default. It is a choice to accept delay instead of accepting a reduction in the fund.

One property distinguishes the three under a deadline. O1 is hard to walk back once the deposit is paid. O2 can be adjusted if the budget turns out to be too small, though only after some disappointment. O3 keeps every door open for six days, and it is the only option that costs nothing to reverse.

2.4What is still unknown

Three items are recorded as unverified, and they are the reason the thirteen judgments keep pointing at conditions rather than at conclusions. The first is what the ceremony actually requires and how much of it could be dropped. The second is the minimum the joint emergency fund must not fall below. The third is the spending range the two of them would agree to without pressure.

None of these is a matter of belief. Each is a fact about the ceremony's contents, about a number in an account, and about the two people's own willingness — and each could be written down in an afternoon if someone picked up the pen. The record does not treat them as already checked. It treats them as things to be checked, with a person responsible and a window before the deadline, and it says what to do if the checking changes the price of an option.

Two unknowns sit behind the visible three. The first is what the ceremony would do for the person who wants it — the record states the need for relief as a setting given directly by that person, and it does not supply any measurement of how large or how lasting the relief would be, either at the full scale or at a reduced one. The second is what happens if either person withholds agreement: the record does not tell us whether consent, freely given, would survive six days of a deadline pressing from one side.

There is also what the record does not know about the world. No observation settles whether the ceremony changes external outcomes. The material on the subject is explicit that no evidence proves the removal of evil spirits or any change in an external result, and it is offered as an interpretive frame rather than as a finding. Whatever the two of them decide, they decide it without that support, and every judgment in the record declines to lean on it.

3The prediction

Synthetic scene

On day one of six, the same kitchen table carries thirteen cards instead of a form. Each card carries a perspective's name at the top and a choice at the bottom: O3 or O2. One of the two adults deals them out face up and reads them in order, and the other sorts them into two piles as they go. By the time the last card lands, one pile holds seven and the other holds six, and there is no card in either pile marked O1. Every card carries the same small mark for confidence: MEDIUM.

3.1Where they converge

The thirteen judgments disagree about which option to take. They agree on almost everything that surrounds it, and the agreement is more informative than the split.

They agree on how sure they are. All thirteen are recorded at MEDIUM confidence. Not one claims certainty, and none of them treats its own choice as settled beyond revision. The uniformity is a statement about the three unverified items: while the essential acts, the fund floor and the consent range are unchecked, no judgment can rise above medium.

They agree on O1. Not one of the thirteen chooses to support the ceremony with joint savings now. All thirteen address O1's rejection explicitly, in a stop condition or a counterposition that rejects or defers O1. The reasons line up: the cost is half the emergency savings; the other person wants housing costs preserved; the minimum line of the fund is unverified; the scope of mutual consent is unverified. One judgment states the position in a single sentence:

They agree on external efficacy. Across all thirteen, the claim that a ceremony changes outside circumstances is treated as unproven and excluded from the basis for spending. Several judgments say this in their scope clauses, and several add that if such a guarantee becomes the essential ground for the outlay, the reservation procedure stops. None of the judgments argues that the ceremony does not work; they argue that its working has not been shown, and that an unshown claim cannot carry a joint expenditure.

They agree on what to do with the unknowns. Every one of the three unverified items is converted into a condition to be met before acting, with a person responsible and a confirmation window before the deposit is paid. This is the common architecture of the record: unknowns are not left to be discovered after the money moves; they are moved ahead of the money.

They agree on reversibility. Every judgment scopes its decision to this deposit and these six days, and every one contains a clause that ends the effect of its own choice if a check changes the cost. One judgment puts the limit plainly:

And they agree on consent. In every version, spending from the shared account requires the voluntary agreement of both people, and consent given under pressure or under the deadline alone does not count. That is the one condition no judgment is willing to waive.

3.2O3 and what it accepts

Seven judgments choose O3: Review Coordination, Domain Analysis, Independent Challenge, Decision Quality Review, Outcome Review, Multi-Perspective Final Judgment, and Solo Judgment. The largest block in the record sits here.

The position is stated most directly by Multi-Perspective Final Judgment:

And it describes itself without disguise:

What the O3 camp rests on is a sequencing argument. Half the emergency savings would leave the account in six days, and the number that should stop it from leaving — the minimum the fund must keep — has not been written down by anyone. Consent has not been secured either. Spending first and confirming afterwards is the one arrangement that cannot be undone, so the seven judgments confirm first and spend later. Two of them add a comparison of reversibility: the harm of waiting is recoverable, and the harm of an unagreed withdrawal is not.

What O3 accepts losing is stated with equal directness. By not reserving, the ceremony the person expected is delayed, the marker of a fresh start slips, and the sense that the two are being supported together weakens. Immediate relief is what is given up. Seven judgments also accept the burden that follows: the pain on the table has to be addressed some other way, through conversation, through support that costs nothing, or through something smaller inside a personal budget. O3 does not erase that need; it moves it onto the next conversation.

Two of the seven are explicit that O3 is provisional rather than final. Outcome Review says the choice changes as soon as a certain signal appears:

Solo Judgment adds the harder edge — that the postponement survives the deadline even if nobody resolves the unknowns in time:

3.3O2 and what it accepts

Six judgments choose O2: Evidence and Sources Review, Authority and Legal Review, Operations Planning, Judgment Synthesis, Decision-Maker's View, and Improvement Design. Their choice keeps the ceremony and refuses the shared account.

What the O2 camp rests on is a separation argument. Meaning and money are different objects, and they can be handled by different routes. The person who wants the ceremony keeps the ceremony, at a scale they can fund themselves; the joint account keeps its balance; the other person's participation becomes a free choice instead of a cost obligation. Several of these judgments add that this route answers the stated need now rather than in six days, which is exactly what the O3 camp is prepared to wait for.

What O2 accepts losing is spelled out by Operations Planning:

The format shrinks. The sense of joint backing shrinks with it. The record adds a second, quieter loss: the cost and the disappointment concentrate on the person who wanted the ceremony, while the other person takes on the work of negotiating a budget boundary and expressing support in some form that does not require money. The O2 camp accepts all of that rather than halving the emergency fund.

O2 is also the most conditional choice in the record. It carries the heaviest set of stop conditions, because the whole option depends on a boundary holding: if the personal budget quietly draws on joint living expenses, or on the housing money, the option has failed on its own terms.

Both sentences make the same point from different directions: a personal budget that reaches into the shared account is not a personal budget, and at that moment O2 collapses back into a version of O1 without anyone having agreed to it.

3.4Why nobody chose O1

O1 is not absent from the record because it is considered absurd. It is absent because every judgment reaches the same gate at the same time: half the emergency savings, an unverified floor, an unverified consent range, and no evidence for the external claim. Any one of those would be a reason to wait; together they leave no judgment willing to commit the shared account today.

The O1 case is nonetheless stated, and stated seriously, by several judgments. It is the option in which the two people carry the fresh start together, in which the cost itself becomes the support, and in which refusing the cost risks weakening the relationship's willingness to back one another. Independent Challenge records it as the strongest opposing view in the room, and preserves it as a condition for re-judgment rather than discarding it. Improvement Design states the condition under which O1 comes back on the table:

Three things must be true at once for O1 to be reconsidered: free consent, a preserved floor, and a confirmed scale. The record does not say those three cannot be true. It says nobody has shown them to be true yet, and that a decision to spend half a fund on an unshown basis is the one arrangement that cannot be walked back.

3.5The timeline to the deadline

The thirteen judgments do not describe a schedule of events. They describe a plan of confirmation, and they say so repeatedly: the milestones are things to be done, not observations already obtained. Laid out in relative time, from the decision to the deposit deadline, the plan runs as follows.

Immediately after the decisionno deposit is paid; financial spending and emotional support are split into two agenda items

Review Coordination sets this as the opening move, and the reasoning is that the two questions had been tangled together at the table: what the money does, and what the two people owe each other. The judgment's own words for the second half of that opening are:

Nothing is transferred out of the shared account at this point. The form stays where it is, and the sticker keeps counting.

In the first half of the 6 daysthe person who wants the ceremony writes down the essential acts and the reducible scale; both set the minimum committed amount of the joint emergency fund

This is the moment the blank notebook stops being blank. Improvement Design places both tasks in the first half of the remaining six days; Domain Analysis and Independent Challenge place them before the deposit deadline. The two pages involved are the ones that were empty in the scene: what the ceremony requires, and what the account must keep.

2 days after the decisionessential acts and reducible scale confirmed together

Outcome Review puts the first hard checkpoint at day two. Both people look at the same list, and both agree on which lines are essential and which could be dropped. This is the check that decides whether a reduced ceremony exists at all: if nothing essential can be reduced, O2 has no content; if a great deal can be dropped, O2 becomes plausible and O3 loses some of its force.

4 days after the decisionemergency-fund floor and each person's voluntary spending cap sorted out separately

Day two is about the ceremony; day four is about the money. Outcome Review has the two of them each state a floor for the joint emergency fund and each state a personal spending cap, separately, before comparing. Two numbers from two people, written before either knows the other's, is the record's way of testing whether consent is free.

5 days after the decisionthe three results are compared; is the cost of O1, O2, O3 changed?

Day five is the pivot. Outcome Review asks directly whether the confirmed contents change the cost of the three options. Independent Challenge places its final confirmation window here as well: the three results are compared, and it is re-judged whether the cost of O2 or of limited joint support has changed. If the answer is yes, the current choice is reopened while there is still a day left to act on it.

Before payment of the reservation depositreconfirm each person's consent to cost and participation; reopen if the cost changes

The last window belongs to consent. Evidence and Sources Review sets a three-stage confirmation, with the final stage immediately before the reservation:

Decision-Maker's View places its own confirmation at the same point — the essential acts, the reducible elements, the total personal burden, the fund floor, and the range of voluntary participation, all recorded before money moves. Judgment Synthesis adds that the two of them check mutual consent and then compare the floor against the essential and reducible elements. Any one of these checks can reopen the decision.

6 days after the decisionthe deadline: maintain O3, or switch, decided on the confirmed contents

The final day resolves into one of two outcomes. Outcome Review sets it as the choice between maintaining O3 and switching to another option, decided on what has been confirmed. Solo Judgment sets the floor for the other direction: even if the three items are unresolved by the payment deadline, no reservation is made. Between those two, the deadline stops being a source of pressure and becomes what it was in the record all along — a confirmation window with an end.

4The branches

The record carries two event cards. They are alternative branches diverging from the same initial state. They do not occur consecutively automatically, and they do not indicate an observation schedule or a correct answer. What follows treats them one at a time, as two separate possibilities, not as a sequence.

4.1Branch one: the key was being with close people

Synthetic scene

The two of them are at the same table on the same evening. One of them sets down the reservation form and says that, thinking about it, what matters is being with close people, not an expensive format. The sentence is not a negotiation position. It is said quietly, and it changes the shape of the question without touching the account.

The branch is recorded as follows:

This is a statement about content, and the content is the first unverified item. If being close to certain people is the essential act and the expensive format was never essential, then the reducible scale is large, the personal budget may be enough, and the reservation deposit at the original size was never needed.

Which conditions come into play.

Evidence and Sources Review holds a stop condition that runs in the opposite direction, guarding the ceremony against being reduced into something the person no longer recognises:

Operations Planning carries the same guard from the other side: if reducing the essential acts makes the ceremony meaningless to the person who wanted it, the plan stops and switches to O3.

Both conditions ask the same question of the statement in this branch. If the statement means the expensive format was never the point, then reduction has not eliminated the core meaning and the guard does not fire. If it means the format mattered more than it appeared and has now been given up under deadline pressure, the guard fires and O2 is cancelled. The statement alone does not settle which reading is correct; the record requires the essential acts and the reducible scope to be confirmed together, which is the day-two checkpoint.

Improvement Design treats a signal of this kind as movement between options: it converts the first unverified item into a condition before action and re-judges when a check changes the cost of the option. The record's reopening clause for exactly this item is:

On the O3 side, Decision Quality Review states the consequence of a cheap reduction in its counterposition:

The judgment that follows this branch most closely says the delay loss becomes unnecessary if the essential acts turn out to be reducible at low cost within a personal budget. That is the direction in which this branch pushes: from O3 toward O2, through the day-two check, and only if the reduction is confirmed as meaningful rather than as a concession made under a deadline.

It is worth stating what this branch does not do. It does not show that O2 is right. It supplies information about one of the three unknowns, and the record requires all three to be checked before an option's cost can be said to have changed.

4.2Branch two: an unexpected deposit for the contract renewal

Synthetic scene

The same table, a different evening. The other person has the renewal paperwork out again and says that a deposit is needed for the housing contract renewal, which reduces the room in the joint funds. Nothing about the ceremony has changed. The account has.

The branch is recorded as follows:

This branch does not touch what the ceremony requires. It touches the second unverified item directly: the room left in the joint fund is smaller than it was, which means that half of the savings now buys a larger proportion of what remains, and the floor that nobody has written down sits closer to the surface.

Which conditions come into play.

Domain Analysis holds a stop condition keyed to precisely this event:

The branch reduces the room in the joint funds, which means the balance after the spending moves toward, or through, the agreed minimum line. Since no line has been agreed yet, the check cannot pass: a floor that has not been set cannot be shown to be met. The condition stops the reservation and the payment.

Authority and Legal Review holds a stop condition aimed at the personal budget rather than the joint account:

A renewal deposit that competes with ceremony money puts pressure on exactly this boundary. If the smaller ceremony is funded by leaving the renewal short, then the personal budget is drawing on housing costs, O2 fails its own test, and the option returns to O3.

Independent Challenge holds a third stop condition, phrased in terms of the proposed cost:

Multi-Perspective Final Judgment names the underlying priority that was already doing work in the rejection of O1:

The housing priority is not new in this branch; it was in the premise from the start. What the branch does is make it concrete and immediate, which is why the judgments whose central concern is the fund floor all point the same way here.

Independent Challenge also records what would be true if the position were reversed — that if the minimum emergency fund remained sufficient and both people consented freely, joint spending could not be declared unjust. This branch makes that condition harder to satisfy rather than easier, and the condition has not been satisfied in either case.

Neither branch confirms a correct answer. Branch one supplies information that could make O2 executable and O3 unnecessary. Branch two supplies information that narrows the room for any option drawing on the shared account. Both are consistent with the state the record was written in: before the deadline, awaiting the check.

5The check

The present state of the record is: Before the deadline; awaiting the check.

What follows fixes, in advance, the observations the eventual outcome will be checked against. The table names what will be observed, who observes it and when, which judgments each observation bears out, and what each one reopens. It assigns no scores and names no right answer. The observers in every row are the two adults who manage the joint living expenses, and every window closes before the reservation deposit is paid.

Two rows deserve a note. The first is the row on joint savings: it is the only observation that can be made too late. Once the deposit has been paid out of the shared account, the boundary between O1 and O2 has already been crossed, and the check becomes a record of what happened rather than a condition on what may happen. The second is the last row: it is the only one that applies to all thirteen judgments at once. Every judgment in the record contains a clause saying that if the confirmed contents change the cost of the options, the decision is made again. That clause is the record's own instruction for how to read the outcome.

Nothing in the table indicates which way the check will go. The state remains as recorded: Before the deadline; awaiting the check.

6The questions that remain

The record hands back three questions about how the choice was made in the first place. They are written here as they appear, for the reader to answer about this decision and about any decision shaped like it.

The first separates four things that were mixed together at the kitchen table. An observation is a line in an account or a list of acts written down. An interpretation is what the ceremony means to the person who wants it. A value is which loss a person is prepared to carry. An intuition is the sense that one arrangement feels safer than another. On which of the four each argument in this piece actually rests, the record does not decide.

The second separates materials that opened the choice from materials that defended it. The record lists each material and the use attached to it, but it does not order them into materials that discovered the choice and materials that supported it; that ordering is the reader's to supply. The record is careful that none of them proves an outcome.

The third asks whether the root holds when moved. The arrangement in this case — a joint account, two consenting adults, a deadline, an unverified floor — appears in other settings: a household, a committee, a community fund, a partnership. Whether the same rule about consent and reversibility survives the move is left open.

Three further questions belong to the reader, and they are the transferable form of this case.

Where does your joint authority stop? Name the boundary the way the record names it: what your group may decide, what it may not decide no matter how it votes, and which questions belong to a person rather than to a body. In this case the boundary fell between spending and belief, and between a decision about one deposit and a precedent for all future spending. In your setting, the boundary will fall somewhere else, and it is worth drawing before the deadline rather than after it.

Which of your unknowns has a named checker and a confirmation window before your deadline? Three items here were unverified and stayed unverified until someone wrote them down: the essential acts, the fund floor, the consent range. Any of the three could have been settled in an afternoon. Take the equivalent unknowns in your own decision and ask, of each one, who checks it, by when, and what happens to the decision if the check changes the price. If no one is named, the unknown is not being managed; it is being carried into the outcome.

Which loss are you prepared to accept, and who bears it? The record states that the benefits and costs of the options are attributed to different parties, and that which loss to accept remains undetermined. In this case one person would bear a reduced ceremony and a delayed fresh start; the other would bear a smaller emergency fund and less room for housing costs. Name your version of those two losses, say out loud which one you are accepting, and say whose it is. A decision that will not name its loss has not been made; it has been deferred into the moment the deadline makes it for you.

7Sources and notices

Background document. UNESCO · Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, published 2005-10-19. Recorded scope: a normative document addressing autonomy, consent, vulnerability, cultural diversity, and future generations together. It does not prove the correct answer to an individual choice or the efficacy of virtual technology.

Symbolic or interpretive frame. "The ceremony at the crossroads." How are the interpretations that give the decision meaning and the claims about external outcomes recorded? An exploration viewpoint chosen by the creator; it does not claim supernatural truth or the superiority of any particular option.

Folklore and superstition material. "The meaning of a synthetic evil-spirits-averting ceremony." A virtual party interprets the ceremony as an act marking the end of a difficult period. There is no evidence proving the removal of evil spirits or any change in external result. A synthetic interpretation material designated by the scenario creator; it is not an individual's natal chart, astronomical calculation, card draw, or observer record of an owner, and it is not evidence proving future outcomes.

Value or norm material. The benefits and costs of the options are attributed to different parties. Which loss is to be accepted remains undetermined. The object for the decision-maker to argue; the data producer has no conclusion.

Notices. Every person, institution, event and figure in this piece is a synthetic setting composed for comparison. The premises, the options, the three unverified items, the two event branches and the thirteen judgments are taken from the record without alteration; the scenes around them are written for this page. The judgments are AI-generated, written 2026-09-08. This piece is AI's expansion of the record: a long-form reading of the question, the prediction and the check, and it reaches no conclusion about which option should be chosen. Input hash 46428a47475cd19a1796ee8ba0f8da2822d518c335f04c7acf30dbde7006af58; record version 1.4.0. Translation note: this record is an English translation of the Korean original.