Matter as an Entanglement Defect: Baryonic Physics & Dark Matter in a K=12 Tensor Network

Matter as an Entanglement Defect:

Confinement, Fractional Charge, Mass, and

Dark Matter from a Single Interstitial Node

in a K = 12 Tensor Network

Raghu Kulkarni

SSMTheory Group, IDrive Inc., Calabasas, CA 91302, USA

raghu@idrive.com

March 2026

Abstract

We demonstrate that a single interstitial node, trapped at a tetrahedral void site

in a K = 12 Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) tensor network, generates the complete

entanglement structure required to reproduce the key properties of baryonic matter.

An empty tetrahedral void has zero entanglement entropy across its boundary. An

occupied void—one containing an interstitial node bonded to four surrounding lat-

tice atoms—introduces 4 entanglement bonds (ebits) that pass exclusively through

the non-bipartite (triangular) faces of the cuboctahedral coordination shell. We

prove that this entanglement is topologically protected from the electromagnetic

sector, which operates only on bipartite (square) faces: this establishes color con-

finement as an exact entanglement protection theorem. The cubic symmetry of the

FCC lattice splits the four bounding atoms into a 1 + 3 decomposition, generat-

ing an entanglement asymmetry that yields the fractional charges +2/3 and −1/3.

The interstitial creates a torsional entanglement deficit of ∆S

tors

= 8 at the void

site; the lattice compensates by distributing this deficit over spherical shells, pro-

ducing a ρ ∝ 1/r

2

dark matter halo as a mechanism of entanglement repair. The

total disrupted entanglement cascade yields (K + 1)K

2

− cK = 1836 bond-states,

recovering the exact proton-to-electron mass ratio. Because this macroscopic 1836-

ebit formation penalty thermodynamically suppresses defect nucleation during the

vacuum phase transition, matter remains extremely rare relative to empty space,

establishing the fundamental statistical mechanics behind the cosmological baryon-

to-photon ratio. Every result follows directly from entanglement accounting on the

FCC tensor network with zero free parameters.

1 Introduction

Tensor networks provide a natural framework for discrete quantum gravity [1, 2]. In

holographic tensor network models, the entanglement structure of the boundary state

determines the bulk geometry via the Ryu-Takayanagi prescription [3]: the entanglement

1

entropy of a boundary region equals the area of the minimal bulk surface enclosing it,

measured in Planck units. Each bond in the tensor network carries one ebit (one maxi-

mally entangled EPR pair), and cutting a bond reduces the entanglement entropy by one

unit.

In the Selection-Stitch Model (SSM) [4, 5], the vacuum tensor network saturates at

the FCC lattice (K = 12), the unique densest packing in 3D [6]. The network’s stiffness

decomposes into a translational sector (S

trans

= 4) and a torsional sector (S

tors

= 8) [7].

Previous SSM work identified matter as a frozen K = 4 tetrahedral defect [8] and derived

quark structure from the crystallographic properties of the tetrahedral void [9].

In this paper, we recast the entire matter content of the SSM in the language of

quantum information. We show that a single interstitial node at a tetrahedral void site

creates a specific entanglement pattern that directly generates confinement (Section 3),

fractional charge (Section 4), mass (Section 5), the dark matter halo (Section 6), and the

extreme cosmological rarity of matter (Section 7). The input is 1 bit of information (void

occupied or not). The output is the complete entanglement structure of baryonic matter.

2 Entanglement Entropy: Empty Void vs. Occupied

Void

2.1 The Empty Tetrahedral Void

The FCC unit cell contains 8 tetrahedral voids [10]. Each void is bounded by 4 lattice

atoms. For the void centered at (a/4, a/4, a/4), the bounding atoms are at positions

A = (0, 0, 0), B = (a/2, a/2, 0), C = (a/2, 0, a/2), D = (0, a/2, a/2). Each bounding

atom has K = 12 nearest-neighbor bonds: 3 connect to other bounding atoms (the

tetrahedral edges) and 9 connect outward to the bulk lattice.

Consider a minimal closed surface Σ enclosing the void interior but excluding all four

bounding atoms (Figure 1a). Since no node exists inside the void, no bonds cross Σ. The

entanglement entropy of the void region is:

S

void

= (number of bonds crossing Σ) = 0 (1)

An empty tetrahedral void contributes zero entanglement entropy to the network. It is a

topological feature of the geometry, not a physical entity.

2.2 The Occupied Void: An Interstitial Node

Now place a single node at the void center. This interstitial bonds to all 4 bounding

atoms. Each bounding atom accommodates this new bond by redirecting one of its 9

outward bonds inward:

Per bounding atom: 3 internally + 1 to interstitial + 8 outward = 12 = K (2)

Every bounding atom retains K = 12 total bonds. The interstitial has K

int

= 4 bonds

(one to each bounding atom). The minimal surface Σ now encloses a node connected by

4 bonds to the exterior (Figure 1b):

S

defect

= 4 ebits (3)

2

The excess entanglement entropy introduced by the interstitial is:

∆S = S

defect

− S

void

= 4 − 0 = 4 ebits (4)

Operating within the discrete tensor network formulation of holography [1,2], where the

Ryu-Takayanagi relation holds locally for any minimal cut regardless of global AdS asymp-

totics, each ebit corresponds to 4l

2

P

of holographic area. The defect’s effective holographic

footprint is A

defect

= 4 ×4l

2

P

= 16l

2

P

. This is the minimum area of any surface that severs

all entanglement between the interstitial and the bulk.

Figure 1: Matter as an interstitial defect in the K = 12 FCC tensor network. (a)

An empty tetrahedral void has no internal node and therefore zero entanglement bonds

crossing its boundary (S = 0). (b) An occupied void contains an interstitial node bonded

to the four bounding atoms, introducing exactly 4 entanglement bonds (S = 4 ebits) and

creating a localized structural defect.

3 Confinement as Topological Entanglement Protec-

tion

3.1 Bipartite and Non-Bipartite Faces

The coordination shell of each K = 12 FCC atom is a cuboctahedron [10], which has 14

faces: 8 triangular (3-cycles) and 6 square (4-cycles). A triangular face is non-bipartite:

its 3-cycle cannot be 2-colored. A square face is bipartite: its 4-cycle admits a 2-coloring.

In the SSM tensor network, the electromagnetic (EM) sector operates exclusively on

bipartite faces. Bipartite faces support alternating charge-screening oscillations required

for photon propagation. Non-bipartite faces frustrate these oscillations topologically.

3

3.2 The Defect’s Bonds Pass Through Triangular Faces

We verify computationally [9] that the 3 bounding atoms adjacent to any reference bound-

ing atom are mutually nearest neighbors. They form a triangular face on the reference

atom’s cuboctahedral shell. Therefore, the bonds from the interstitial to the bounding

atoms pass exclusively through triangular (non-bipartite) faces.

This yields the confinement theorem:

Theorem (Topological Entanglement Protection): The entanglement between

the interstitial node and the bounding atoms cannot be disrupted by any operation re-

stricted to the bipartite (EM) sector of the tensor network.

Proof: Each entanglement bond from the interstitial passes through a triangular

face. Triangular faces are non-bipartite. By definition within the SSM framework, EM

operators act only on bipartite faces. Therefore, no EM operator can couple to or sever

these bonds.

This is color confinement stated as an entanglement protection theorem. Photons

couple exclusively to the 6 square faces, resolving only the net charge of the composite

defect. The internal entanglement structure is invisible to EM.

3.3 The String Tension from Entanglement Stretching

To separate a bounding atom from the defect, one must stretch a non-bipartite entan-

glement bond. The FCC lattice enforces a kinematic exclusion limit (the metric wall

at L/

√

3 [5]) that prevents nodes from passing through each other. Stretching a bond

against this wall costs energy proportional to the separation distance:

V (r) = σr (5)

where σ is the string tension. If sufficient energy is supplied to fracture the bond entirely,

the lattice nucleates a new node-antinode pair to cap the severed entanglement (string

breaking). This maps directly to quark-antiquark pair production.

4 Fractional Charge from Entanglement Asymmetry

4.1 The 1 + 3 Entanglement Splitting

The interstitial bonds to 4 bounding atoms. The FCC lattice has cubic O

h

symmetry,

while the tetrahedron has T

d

symmetry. The intersection O

h

∩T

d

does not act transitively

on the 4 vertices. For the void at (a/4, a/4, a/4), the vertices decompose into [9]:

• 1 corner site: A = (0, 0, 0)

• 3 face-center sites: B, C, D at (a/2, a/2, 0), (a/2, 0, a/2), (0, a/2, a/2)

The three face-center sites are equivalent under cubic rotations. The corner site is distinct.

This physical embedding creates a 1 + 3 entanglement asymmetry.

4.2 Charge as Entanglement Distinguishability

Electric charge, in this framework, measures the fraction of the internal entanglement

pattern that is distinguishable by operations restricted to the bipartite (EM) sector. For

4

each bounding atom, we ask: of the 3 internal bonds (to other bounding atoms), how

many are inequivalent?

Corner atom (d-quark): Bonds to 3 face-center atoms. All 3 partners are crystal-

lographically equivalent. The entanglement pattern is fully symmetric. The fraction of

distinguishable internal entanglement is 0/3 = 0, but the atom itself constitutes 1 of the

3 internal connections per neighbor. The bond asymmetry ratio evaluates to −1/3.

Face-center atom (u-quark): Bonds to 1 corner + 2 face-centers. The entanglement

pattern has 1 distinct partner and 2 equivalent partners. The bond asymmetry ratio is

2/3, mapping strictly to a charge of +2/3.

The proton (uud): 2 face-centers + 1 corner visible (1 face-center acts as the unobserv-

able structural anchor) → charge +2/3 + 2/3 −1/3 = +1. The neutron: spatial inversion

swaps assignments → udd → charge 0.

5 Mass from the Entanglement Disruption Cascade

5.1 Structural Node Count

The interstitial bonds to 4 bounding atoms. Each bounding atom commits 3 of its 12

bonds internally (to the other 3 bounding atoms). Including the interstitial as the central

coordination node, the total structural node count is:

N

struct

= 4 × 3 + 1 = 13 = K + 1 (6)

5.2 Entanglement Propagation Depth

Each structural node disrupts the entanglement of its K = 12 nearest neighbors. Each

disrupted neighbor in turn has its K = 12 bonds perturbed. The entanglement disruption

per structural node propagates to depth:

D

prop

= K

2

= 144 disrupted bond-states per node (7)

The disruption attenuates and effectively terminates beyond this second coordination shell

(D

prop

= K

2

) because the continuous volumetric degrees of freedom of the K = 12 bulk

successfully absorb, thermalize, and screen the discrete local strain beyond this radius,

establishing the definitive boundary of the particle’s structural core.

5.3 Crossing Correction

The tetrahedral void has 6 edges forming c = 3 pairs of opposite (skew) edges [9]. These

crossing pairs represent shared entanglement zones—regions where the disruption cascades

from two different structural nodes overlap. This double-counting must be structurally

subtracted:

N

crossing

= c × K = 3 × 12 = 36 (8)

5

5.4 The Mass Formula

The total net disrupted entanglement evaluates to:

m

p

/m

e

= N

struct

× D

prop

− N

crossing

= (K + 1)K

2

− cK (9)

= 13 × 144 − 36 = 1872 − 36 = 1836 (10)

Table 1: Proton mass derived from the entanglement disruption cascade.

Component Entanglement Origin Value

K + 1 = 13 4 bounding atoms × 3 bonds + 1 interstitial 13 nodes

K

2

= 144 Each node disrupts K neighbors × K bonds 144 per node

−cK = −36 3 crossing pairs × K shared bonds -36 overcounting

Total 13 × 144 − 36 1836

The observed proton-to-electron mass ratio is 1836.15267. The entanglement count

evaluates to exactly 1836 (a 0.008% deviation). The mass of a particle is the total entan-

glement disruption caused by the interstitial—the exact energetic cost of maintaining the

defect within the ordered tensor network.

6 Dark Matter as Entanglement Repair

6.1 The Torsional Entanglement Deficit

Each bond in the K = 12 lattice carries entanglement partitioned into two sectors [7]:

Translational weight per bond: S

trans

/K = 4/12 = 1/3 (11)

Torsional weight per bond: S

tors

/K = 8/12 = 2/3 (12)

The interstitial is a remnant of the pre-crystallization K = 4 phase [8], which possesses

translational degrees of freedom but no organized torsional structure. The interstitial’s 4

bonds carry translational entanglement but zero torsional entanglement. At every regular

K = 12 lattice site, the torsional structure tensor evaluates to S

tors

= 8. At the interstitial

site, S

tors

= 0. The torsional entanglement deficit is strictly:

∆S

tors

= S

tors

(K = 12) − S

tors

(K = 4) = 8 − 0 = 8 (13)

6.2 Entanglement Repair via Spherical Redistribution

The tensor network cannot tolerate a localized entanglement deficit—it would correspond

to an absolute discontinuity in the torsional (θ-field) sector of the Cosserat vacuum [11].

The lattice mechanically compensates by redistributing the missing 8 torsional entangle-

ments over the surrounding continuous volume.

By spherical symmetry, the redistribution spreads the deficit over shells of area 4πr

2

.

The torsional entanglement density at distance r is:

s

tors

(r) =

∆S

tors

4πr

2

=

8

4πr

2

(14)

6

Each unit of redistributed torsional entanglement carries an energy cost E

bond

(the energy

per ebit in the network). The effective mass density of the repair field is:

ρ

DM

(r) = s

tors

(r) × E

bond

=

8E

bond

4πr

2

(15)

This is the isothermal dark matter halo profile ρ ∝ 1/r

2

, derived strictly from entangle-

ment conservation. The dark matter halo is not composed of independent particles. It

is the macroscopic lattice repair of the missing torsional entanglement at the defect site.

Every interstitial necessarily generates a 1/r

2

halo because every interstitial has the same

8-unit torsional deficit.

7 Cosmological Abundance and the Rarity of Matter

If visible matter is precisely defined as an interstitial defect, and empty space is defined

by the continuous K = 12 tensor network, we can explain the extreme cosmological rarity

of matter through the thermodynamics of the vacuum phase transition.

During the Big Bang quench (K = 4 → K = 12), the tensor network rapidly relaxes

into its lowest-energy, fully entangled ground state. For a node to fail this transition

and become permanently trapped at an interstitial void site, it must overcome a massive

topological energy barrier.

As derived in Section 5, maintaining a single interstitial defect forces the surrounding

FCC lattice out of equilibrium, generating a localized disruption cascade of exactly 1836

bond-states. Therefore, the formation energy required to freeze out a matter defect is

fundamentally tied to this 1836-ebit penalty.

In any continuous phase transition, the probability of a topological defect surviving the

quench is governed by statistical mechanics (specifically Kibble-Zurek defect formation

rules), where high-energy topological knots are exponentially suppressed by their forma-

tion cost. Because the entanglement penalty of a single baryon is macroscopic (1836

times the fundamental bond energy), the statistical probability of a node freezing into an

interstitial site rather than relaxing into the bulk K = 12 network is vanishingly small.

This strictly geometric energy barrier explains the extreme scarcity of matter relative

to empty space. When matter and antimatter annihilate, this stored 1836-bond penalty is

released as a massive photon bath. The resulting baryon-to-photon ratio (η ∼ 10

−10

) is not

an arbitrary initial condition of the universe; it is the direct thermodynamic consequence of

the 1836-ebit entanglement penalty forcefully suppressing defect formation during vacuum

crystallization.

8 Three Colors from Entanglement Crossings

The 6 edges of the tetrahedron form 3 pairs of opposite (skew) edges—edges sharing no

vertices [9]:

Pair 1: (A − B) ⊥ (C − D), Pair 2: (A − C) ⊥ (B −D), Pair 3: (A − D) ⊥ (B −C)

(16)

In any 2D projection, these 3 skew pairs produce exactly 3 geometric crossings (the

minimum crossing number c = 3 of the trefoil knot [7]). Each crossing represents a pair

of entanglement bonds that cannot be simultaneously disentangled without non-local

7

operations. The 3 independent crossing pairs map to the 3 color charges of QCD. A

fourth color would require a fourth independent skew-edge pair, which structurally does

not exist in a tetrahedron.

9 Annihilation and Spin-1/2

9.1 Annihilation as Entanglement Cancellation

The FCC lattice has two tetrahedral void orientations: positive (centered at (a/4, a/4, a/4))

and negative (centered at (3a/4, 3a/4, 3a/4)). A particle is an interstitial at a positive

void; an antiparticle is an interstitial at a negative void.

When a particle and antiparticle occupy the same site:

• The two interstitials’ entanglement bonds are oriented in strictly opposite directions.

• Complete cancellation: every entanglement bond introduced by one defect is re-

stored by the other.

• Both interstitials leave the void sites. The voids return to empty.

• The stored disrupted entanglement (2 × 1836 bond-states) is released as lattice

waves: translational (photons) and torsional (θ-field modes).

E

annihilation

= 2 × N

disrupted

× E

bond

= 2mc

2

(17)

9.2 Spin-1/2 from Void Alternation

Translating an interstitial defect continuously through the FCC lattice requires hopping

between adjacent voids. Because adjacent tetrahedral voids inherently alternate between

positive and negative orientations, the defect must undergo a spatial inversion at each

step. To return the defect to an identical structural state (e.g., from positive, to negative,

back to positive), it must complete two full transition steps. This geometric requirement

for a double-cycle strictly corresponds to a 720

◦

rotation in the Cosserat phase field,

physically mandating the Spin-1/2 behavior of standard fermions.

10 Unified Correspondence

Table 2 summarizes the complete structural and mathematical correspondence between

the observed physical properties of baryonic matter and the derived entanglement geom-

etry of the interstitial defect.

11 Falsifiable Predictions

(a) No isolated fractional charges. Confinement is a topological property of the non-

bipartite faces. Detection of a free, unconfined fractional charge would immediately falsify

the entanglement protection mechanism.

(b) No fourth color. The tetrahedron has exactly 3 skew-edge pairs. A fourth color

requires a void geometry with 4 independent crossing pairs, which does not exist in FCC.

8

Table 2: Complete correspondence between physical properties and entanglement struc-

ture of the interstitial defect.

Physical Property Entanglement Origin Value

Confinement Bonds through non-bipartite faces →

topologically protected

V (r) = σr

Charge (+2/3, −1/3) 1 + 3 entanglement asymmetry from

O

h

∩ T

d

2/3, 1/3

Mass (m

p

/m

e

) Disrupted entanglement cascade:

(K + 1)K

2

− cK

1836

Dark matter halo Torsional entanglement repair:

∆S

tors

= 8 over 4πr

2

ρ ∝ 1/r

2

Cosmological Abundance 1836-ebit formation penalty sup-

presses defects

Baryon rarity (η ≪ 1)

Three colors 3 skew-edge crossing pairs (c = 3) 3

Annihilation Opposite entanglement cancellation:

P + N → empty

2mc

2

Spin-1/2 Alternating void orientations require

2 steps to recur

720

◦

Baryon number Void occupied (1) or empty (0) 1 bit

(c) Dark matter profile ρ ∝ 1/r

2

. The torsional entanglement repair is spherically

symmetric by construction. If rotation curves definitively require a fundamentally differ-

ent core profile (e.g., NF W ∝ 1/r

3

at large r without invoking baryonic feedback loops),

this mechanism is falsified.

(d) Baryon abundance suppression. The framework rigidly links the cosmological

rarity of matter to the 1836-ebit formation penalty. If high-redshift observations or col-

lider defect-nucleation experiments reveal baryon density scaling that defies exponential

thermodynamic suppression relative to the radiation bath (violating topological defect

freeze-out statistics), this derivation is invalid.

12 Conclusion

We demonstrated that the complete entanglement structure of baryonic matter follows

from a single interstitial node at a tetrahedral void site in the K = 12 FCC tensor network.

The interstitial creates 4 entanglement bonds through non-bipartite faces (confinement),

a 1 + 3 entanglement asymmetry (fractional charge), a disruption cascade effectively ter-

minating at K

2

yielding 1836 bond-states (mass), a torsional entanglement deficit of

∆S

tors

= 8 repaired as a ρ ∝ 1/r

2

halo (dark matter), and a massive 1836-ebit thermo-

dynamic formation penalty that dictates the extreme cosmological rarity of matter. The

input is 1 bit: is the void occupied or empty? The output is the unified structural founda-

tion of hadronic physics and cosmology. Every result derives directly from entanglement

accounting on the FCC tensor network with exactly zero free parameters.

9

A SSM Conceptual Primer

To ensure this framework is fully self-contained for readers outside the immediate crys-

tallographic tensor-network community, we outline the five mechanical axioms governing

the Selection-Stitch Model (SSM) utilized in this derivation.

A.1. The Discrete Vacuum and K = 12 Saturation. The SSM rejects the

continuum manifold. Spacetime is strictly modeled as a discrete network of nodes and

entanglement bonds (a tensor network). The absolute lowest-energy vacuum ground state

is the Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) lattice. This geometry physically satisfies the Kepler

conjecture [6], proving it is the unique mathematically densest packing of uniform struc-

tures in three dimensions. In this saturated state, every node commands exactly K = 12

nearest-neighbor bonds.

A.2. The Big Bang as Vacuum Crystallization. The pre-Big Bang universe is

modeled as a high-entropy, amorphous simplicial complex with an average coordination of

K = 4 (a disordered tetrahedral foam). The ”Big Bang” is simply a rapid thermodynamic

phase transition—a bulk spatial crystallization where this highly energetic foam cools and

restructures into the ordered K = 12 FCC ground state [8].

A.3. The Chiral Cosserat Lagrangian. The mechanics of this discrete network

follow the Chiral Cosserat Lagrangian. In standard continuum mechanics, points only

possess translational displacement. In a Cosserat medium, every node possesses both

a translational vector (u) and an independent rotational/torsional orientation (θ). The

Lagrangian requires a mechanical chiral cross-coupling term, Ω(u

˙

θ −θ ˙u). This continuous

internal coupling maps directly to the complex phase of quantum mechanics, cleanly

generating the emergent Schr¨odinger equation by strictly defining the wave function as

ψ = u + iθ [11]. The structure tensors of the FCC lattice rigidly partition the network’s

energy into a translational sector (S

trans

= 4) and a torsional sector (S

tors

= 8), locking

the vacuum energy partition to a 1:2 geometric ratio [7].

A.4. Matter as Topological Defects. Because the Big Bang crystallization is a

rapid thermal quench, it suffers from topological frustration. The phase transition is not

perfect. Localized regions that fail to crystallize into the FCC grid remain permanently

trapped as K = 4 tetrahedral defects. These immutable K = 4 structural knots act

as unyielding stress-centers within the surrounding K = 12 lattice. In the SSM, these

localized topological defects manifest macroscopically as baryonic matter (quarks and

leptons) [9].

A.5. The Kinematic Exclusion Limit. In the SSM, nodes act as hard spheres

with a geometric diameter L. Consequently, the internal body diagonal of the FCC

unit cell enforces an absolute minimum compression threshold of L/

√

3 [5]. No two

nodes can mechanically compress or pass through one another beyond this limit. This

kinematic exclusion limit acts as a rigid ”metric wall,” physically generating string tension

against separating entangled nodes and preventing the gravitational collapse of black hole

singularities.

References

[1] B. Swingle, “Entanglement renormalization and holography,” Phys. Rev. D 86,

065007 (2012).

10

[2] F. Pastawski, B. Yoshida, D. Harlow, and J. Preskill, “Holographic quantum error-

correcting codes,” JHEP 06, 149 (2015).

[3] S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from

AdS/CFT,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 181602 (2006).

[4] R. Kulkarni, “Constructive Verification of K = 12 Lattice Saturation,” Zenodo:

10.5281/zenodo.18294925 (In review) (2026).

[5] R. Kulkarni, “Late-Universe Dynamics from Vacuum Geometry,” Zenodo:

10.5281/zenodo.18753874 (In review) (2026).

[6] T. C. Hales, “A proof of the Kepler conjecture,” Annals Math. 162, 1065 (2005).

[7] R. Kulkarni, “A Topological Ansatz for the Proton-to-Electron Mass Ratio,” Zenodo:

10.5281/zenodo.18253326 (In review) (2026).

[8] R. Kulkarni, “Geometric Phase Transitions in a Discrete Vacuum,” Zenodo:

10.5281/zenodo.18727238 (In review) (2026).

[9] R. Kulkarni, “Matter as Frozen Phase Boundaries: Quark Structure, Fractional

Charges, and Color Confinement from Tetrahedral Defects in a K = 12 Vacuum

Lattice,” Zenodo: 10.5281/zenodo.18917946 (In review) (2026).

[10] H. S. M. Coxeter, Regular Polytopes, Dover (1973).

[11] R. Kulkarni, “Geometric Emergence of Spacetime Scales,” Zenodo: 10.5281/zen-

odo.18752809 (In review) (2026).

11