Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: 6.8 In period 2006-2012 the same sampling method was used as in 2013-2017. In the first period we counted 13 grids 1X1 km in which the species was found. In the second period we counted 48 grids. ||
->HabInfo: 7.1 b) Area in Flanders is sufficient, but not all spawning grounds are occupied yet due to water quality and migration barriers ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: 11.7 Improvement of water quality, mitigation of migration barriers, part of the historical spawning grounds- are back occupied ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: Wanderfische - 1. Ermittlung der besiedelten Fließgewässerabschnitte
2. Verschneidung mit dem 1x1km-Raster
3. Ermittlung der besetzten grids1x1 ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: La mayor proporción del rango de la especie se localiza en Galicia, en las cuencas de los ríos Miño y Ulla. ||
->Population: La especie se detectó en 3 de los 3 puntos de muestreo. La ecología de los peces y la heterogeneidad de los ecosistemas acuáticos hacen inviable la extrapolación de las estimaciones de la densidad de población obtenidas en los puntos de muestreo para el resto de las cuencas fluviales de la región biogeográfica (Doadrio et al., 2011).
Las localidades en 6.4 son equivalentes a los cursos fluviales en los que se distribuye la especie, Miño, Ulla y Lérez. ||
->HabInfo: El hábitat disponible y óptimo para la especie se ha visto degradado principalmente en las últimas décadas dados los efectos producidos por los obstáculos transversales en los ríos, especialmente grandes presas y embalses. La contaminación de origen urbano y agrario de las aguas fluviales, sumado a la proliferación de especies exóticas invasoras han originado un deterioro muy grave de los hábitats históricos fluviales en la bioregión Atlántica. ||
->Future: La distribución actual de la saboga, y en general de los peces anádromos en la región Atlántica está determinada por la presencia de las presiones e impactos presentes en la mayoría de los ríos. Los efectos directos e indirectos de los obstáculos transversales (presas, embalses, azudes), y la escasa conectividad fluvial sumada a la contaminación difusa y puntual de las aguas, impiden la recuperación de la especie actualmente, y comprometen su supervivencia a largo plazo. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The range for twaite shad was calculated by creating envelopes around the distribution grids for five main channel rivers (including four SACs). These range envelopes extend from the mouths of the rivers to the most upstream locations where twaite shad were recorded.
With the exception of a small number of fortuitous records for adult twaite shad for the River Slaney and River Boyne in the previous reporting period, the range for the two reporting periods was similar and was assessed as stable. The trend was assessed over the period 2009-2018 but is assumed to hold also over the default trend period of 2007-2018.
There was a small increase in the species range since the previous reporting period. This does not reflect a genuine change but is due to improved knowledge.
The FRR was calculated based on barriers to upstream migrations. The first impassable barrier was taken to represent the upstream extent of favourable range. On the River Barrow, this was St. Mullins weir; on the River Suir a weir in Clonmel; on the River Slaney at Clohamon and the River Blackwater at Carysville. The FRR is much greater than the current range as it should incorporate extensions to encompass barriers to upstream migrations in selected rivers. The FRR is estimated based on the assumption that adult shad should be able to migrate upstream on the R. Nore and R. Suir past the upper tidal limit to Thomastown and Clonmel, respectively. Individual shad have been encountered in the estuary of the R. Boyne in the past and it is considered to be part of the FRR. ||
->Population: The population estimate (Field 6.2) represents the number of 1 km grids where larval and juvenile Alosa sp. were captured in target and non-target netting and trawling surveys during 2010-2018. It also includes the number of grids for positive results of angling and shad egg surveys.
The ‘number of subadults’ captured in beach seine netting surveys for juvenile fish in the Barrow, Nore and Suir estuaries in 2010, 2013 and 2016 (Kelly et al., 2011, 2015) is as follows: Forty net hauls were taken each year and the proportion of positive hauls ranged from 23% in 2016 to 50% in 2010. A total of 238 Alosa sp. were recorded in 2010 compared with 42 in 2016. Only young-of-year shads were captured in these surveys (from spawning events in May-July of those years) and results cannot give a true representation of the population size. They do, however, indicate that successful spawning events occurred in these years and that recruitment is likely to have occurred. The juvenile shads ranged in length from 42 to 104 mm, with an average total length of 74 mm.
The population size unit changed from ‘number of colonies’ in the previous reporting period to the ‘number of occupied 1x1 km grids’ in the current cycle. Based on the limited available data and expert judgement, the short-term trend in population is assessed as stable. Trend was assessed over the period 2009-2018 but is assumed to be the same for the default trend period of 2007-2018.
The change in population size between the two periods was due to a change in the reporting unit.
Based on best expert judgement the FRP is estimated to be at least 25% greater than the current population. ||
->HabInfo: Twaite shad have two optimal habitat requirements – adult spawning habitat and nursery habitat for 0-group fish. Over its European range, the species can migrate long distances into freshwater to spawn, where unimpeded migration pathways are available. Spawning activity is found in gravelled areas of main-stem SAC rivers with a moderate gradient and a diversity of depth-velocity conditions. Shad engage in external fertilisation and broadcast eggs and sperm into open water. Fertilised eggs hatch out either in the water column or on the channel bed. The post larval fish are exposed to tidal transport and can be moved up and down the estuaries with tidal movement until they develop swimming capacity to be able to hold station or residency, independent of flow conditions, in backwater and refuge areas.
In Ireland, adults migrate into the upper tidal freshwater areas of the main designated rivers. There is unimpeded access for twaite shad into the freshwater reaches of the Rivers Nore and Suir (and to a certain extent in the Rivers Slaney and Munster Blackwater) but fish are not recorded in these riverine areas. The navigation weir on the River Barrow at its upper tidal limit prevents upriver migration. Given that twaite shad have access to freshwater spawning habitat in four SAC rivers, it is not fully understood why the species appears to spawn only in the upper tidal limits. It is unclear whether they are exhibiting a selective preference for more estuarine conditions or whether the quality of habitat in the riverine sections makes it unsuitable for spawning.
The extent of available spawning habitat has been assessed visually, from bankside and via float-over survey, over the period 2000-2018. At low tide the extent of gravelled areas is apparent. This extent has not reduced over the period under review. The estuarine waters constitute the nursery habitat available to the 0-group twaite shad. Estuarine length has not altered over the long-term or short-term periods covered here.
Short-term trend was assessed over the period 2009-2018, while long-term trend was assessed over the period 2000-2018. The trend assessments are assumed to apply also over the default short- and long-term trend periods. ||
->Future: No real change in the status of Range and Population is expected over the next 12 years even if certain conservation measures are adopted. Therefore, the Future prospects of these parameters are assessed as Bad.
No real change in the status of Habitat is expected over the next 12 years even if certain conservation measures are adopted. Therefore, the Future prospects of habitat are assessed as Poor. ||
->Conclusion: The current range estimate is >10% below the FRR and is assessed as Bad.
The population size estimate is based on data for juvenile Alosa sp. and only limited data on adult twaite shad. It is considered to be >25% below the FRP and is therefore assessed as Bad. This represents a change from an assessment of Inadequate in the previous reporting period and is due to improved knowledge and best expert judgement.
The area of habitat is not sufficiently large for the long-term maintenance of the population. Spawning appears to be restricted to the upper tidal limits due to barriers to migration (weirs) or, in certain catchments where suitable habitat is available, due to reasons that are not well understood. Habitat is therefore assessed as Inadequate.
The overall conservation status remains unchanged from the previous reporting period and is assessed as Bad with a stable trend. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Vorige periode zijn het IJsselmeer en Markermeer meegerekend in de range. Nu is ervoor gekozen om dat niet te doen, omdat dat eigenlijk geen serieus leefgebied is. Daarom is de range kleiner geworden zonder dat er werkelijk iets is veranderd. IJsselmeer en Markermeer worden ook niet meer meegerekend in de FRR. De huidige range blijft daardoor ongeveer gelijk aan de FRR. ||
->Population: Fint is sinds de 1970s als paaipopulatie afwezig in de Nederlandse benedenlopen van Maas en Rijn. De finten die langs de kust voorkomen en af en toe ook in binnenwateren worden waargenomen zijn van andere populaties afkomstig. De populatietrend is ingeschat door de expert op basis van de beschikbare gegevens.
Vorige keer in individuen gerapporteerd, nu in km-hokken. ||
->HabInfo: Fint komt in wisselende aantallen (sommige jaren in grote aantallen) voor langs de Nederlandse kust en in de waddenzee. De oorsprong van deze (jonge) fint is nog onbekend maar vrijwel zeker uit buitenlandse rivieren afkomstig. Fint heeft een goed functionerend estuarium met zoetwatergtijdegebied nodig om te kunnen paaien en opgroeien. Deze habitats zijn uit Nederland vrijwel verdwenen met de bouw van de deltawerken en Afsluitdijk en is sindsdien niet verbeterd (alleen de waterkwaliteit). Er zijn enige aanwijzingen dat er soms paaiende finten in het benedenrivierengebied voorkomen, maar of dit succesvolle paai is, is onbekend en hier zijn nog geen bewijzen voor gevonden. ||
->Future: Het ontbreken van een goed functionerend estuarium in mondingen van de Maas en Rijn is de grootste beperkende factor voor een terugkeer van een paaipopulatie fint in NL. De huidige situatie is voor een paaipopulatie in Nederland slecht. Het Kierbesluit Haringvliet en de Vismigratierivier in de Afsluitdijk zal de intrekbaarheid vergroten, maar de habitatkwaliteit in het achterland zal naar verwachting niet voldoende worden hersteld richting estuariene dynamiek die succesvolle paai en opgroei van fint vereist. Of lokale voorgenomen initiatieven met creeëren van dynamische brakwaterzones, zoals bijvoorbeeld bij het Amstelmeer, zullen leiden tot lokale paai aldaar is nog zeer onzeker. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Espécie com elevado valor comercial. Os obstáculos à migração potenciam a ocorrência de hibridação com Alosa alosa, diminuindo a capacidade reprodutora efectiva e a integridade genética da espécie.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Due to their migratory life history, the distribution of twaite shad is likely to be underestimated. Assessment of this species' Range is further complicated due to the difficulty in discriminating between allis and twaite shad species. ||
->Population: Due to the difficulties of identification between twaite and allis shad, and their ability to hybridise, the monitoring of shad populations is technically very challenging. Records for twaite shad are sporadic throughout the short term trend period and survey effort is not consistant across the species' range, so the short-term trend is uncertain. In the previous reporting round, twaite shad were assessed using the length of occupied river (Hatton-Ellis et al. 2012). Since the EU reporting unit is an equivalent type of unit, occupied river length has not been recalculated for the 2019 reporting. There has been no appreciable change in shad population since the last reporting period at UK-level, so the same FRP operator was still appropriate. ||
->HabInfo: Access restrictions (due to physical barriers) to historical river habitat is the primary issue for the species in reducing habitat sufficiency. Water quality is also known to comprimise the species, although the extent of the problem is uncertain. ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Positive - increasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; Future trend of Population is Positive - increasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; and Future trend of Habitat for the species is Positive- slight/moderate improvement. For further information on how future trends inform the Future prospects conclusion see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is not more than 10% below the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Population reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Population size is uncertain; and (ii) the current Population size is not more than 25% below the Favourable Reference Population.
Conclusion on Habitat for the species reached because: (i) the area of occupied and unoccupied habitat is not sufficiently and (ii) the habitat quality is not adequate for the long-term survival of the species; and (iii) the short-term trend in area of habitat is stable.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are poor; (ii) the Future prospects for Population are poor; and (iii) the Future prospects for Habitat for the species are poor.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-inadequate because all of the conclusions are Unfavourable-inadequate.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Population - uncertain, and Habitat for the species - stable.
The overall Conservation Status has not changed since 2013.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Range trend has changed from unknown to stable, the Population trend has changed from increasing to uncertain, and the Habitat for the species trend has changed from increasing to stable. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Surface area of distribution range differs from the previous reporting period when distribution range in the open sea was not requested - only costal distribution range was presented. Additional squares representing distribution range in marine waters are based on the extrapolation of scientific and commercial fisheries data. ||
->Population: Different reporting method – 1x1 km grids instead of individuals ||
->HabInfo: Wide distribution range where species have been detected and detection of species every year indicate that status of suitable habitats is likely stable ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Data on distribution range in marine areas added which appears as increased distribution since the previous reporting period. During the reporting period no hydropower construction have taken place that could threaten species distribution range. There is no specialized fishing that targets Alosa fallax. Detection of small number of specimens in bycatch in commercial and scientific fisheries every year allows to assume that status of species is likely stable. ||
->JustificationThreshold: Not applicable ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: Wanderfische - 1. Ermittlung der besiedelten Fließgewässerabschnitte
2. Verschneidung mit dem 1x1km-Raster
3. Ermittlung der besetzten grids1x1 ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: The estimate of population size is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. The population estimate is provided as a range whose minimum and maximum values are thus calculated:
• Minimum: as the intersection between the 1x1km grid, the main hydrographic network and the species' 10x10km distribution.
• Maximum: as the intersection between the 1x1km grid, the whole hydrographic network (the main plus the secondary till the 3rd order) and the species' 10x10km distribution. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: El río Ebro ha alojado históricamente una de las poblaciones de saboga más importantes del Mediterráneo Occidental. Las múltiples alteraciones del drenaje de los ríos (principalmente embalses) y la contaminación del agua provocaron una disminución drástica hasta que la especie se consideró como localmente extinguida en el río Ebro. Sin embargo, estudios sugieren una recuperación lenta pero gradual de la especie en el tramo bajo del río Ebro, aunque al límite de su supervivencia a largo plazo.
El resto de poblaciones ibéricas mediterráneas se mantienen actualmente en los cursos bajos del Fluviá en la cuenca del Mediterráneo, y en las desembocaduras y tramos bajos del Guadiana y del Guadalquivir en el Atlántico (Doadrio et al. 2001). ||
->Population: La población adicional considerada en 6.4 indicada en localidades equivale al número de cursos fluviales en donde se mantiene la especie actualmente: los ríos Guadalquivir, Guadiana, Fluviá y Ebro (Doadrio et al., 2011). ||
->HabInfo: El hábitat disponible y óptimo para la especie se ha visto degradado principalmente en las últimas décadas dados los efectos producidos por los obstáculos transversales en los ríos, especialmente grandes presas y embalses. La contaminación de origen urbano y agrario de las aguas fluviales, sumado a la proliferación de especies exóticas invasoras han originado un deterioro muy grave de los hábitats históricos fluviales en la bioregión Mediterránea. ||
->Future: La distribución actual de la saboga, y en general de los peces anádromos en la región Mediterránea está determinada por la presencia de las presiones e impactos presentes en la mayoría de los ríos. Los efectos directos e indirectos de los obstáculos transversales (presas, embalses, azudes), y la escasa conectividad fluvial sumada a la contaminación difusa y puntual de las aguas, impiden la recuperación de la especie actualmente, y comprometen su supervivencia a largo plazo. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Very few samples (basically expert judgment), making it dificcult to extrapolate a number or a class for reporting population unit.
The population size in 6.2.d has been calculated in GIS using spatial information from the distribution data (10x10 km or smaller grids if additional data were available). Following the conversion of the available data in 1x1 km grid unit, marine or terrestrial grid cells have been deleted and thus excluded from the calculation, depending on the biogeographical region where the species occurs (MED or MMED, respectively). ||
->HabInfo: The surface area of the habitat is estimated at 4775 km2 and its quality is bad. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: The % threshold could not be used for the assessment since: a) a different method for assessing range was employed, compared to the 2nd Reporting Period or b) no data were reported in the 2nd Reporting Period. ||
->Other: 1. The species is appearing along the coastal zones of Greece, usually near the rivers’ mouths in which the species enters for spawning purposes. According to Economidis (1991), Bobori et al. (2001), Kottelat & Freyhof (2007) and Economidis et al. (2009), there is evidence of the species presence in the estuaries of river Evros and in its tributary Ardas, in the estuaries of the lagoon Vistonis and of the river Nestos (Thrace), Strymon, Axios, Loudias and Aliakmon (Macedonia), of Pineios (Thessaly), Acheloos, Louros and Arachthos in the Amvrakikos gulf and of Kalamas (western Greece). The species, according to the above mentioned authors, migrates to the river for spawning, which nowadays is prohibited due to the presence of barriers in the rivers, such as weirs, dams, but also by the small amount of water in the rivers due to the large scale water abstraction for irrigation and hydropower production and the change or loss of habitats.
2. Basic Assumptions:
i) "Surface Area Range" (field 5.1) = value extracted from "Range Map" (field 2.5).
ii) "Favourable Reference Range" (field 5.10a) = a) "Surface Area Range" (field 5.1) OR b) value extracted from "Additional Reference Range Map" (provided). Depends on whether the Favourable range is equal or larger than actual species range.
iii) "Population Size" (field 6.2 or 6.4) = value extracted from "Distribution Map" (field 2.3) or "Additional Distribution Map" (field 2.5) (when provided).
iv) "Favourable Reference Population" (field 6.15a) = a) "Population Size" (field 6.2 or 6.4) OR b) value extracted from "Additional Reference Range Map" (provided). Depends on whether the Favourable population is equal or larger than actual species population.
v) Habitat "Area Estimation" (field 7.9) = "Distribution Map" (field 2.3) or "Additional Distribution Map" (field 2.5) (when provided).

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: Assessment of quality of occupied habitat is based on the results for hydromophological, ecological and total parameters according to the Water Framework Directive. Data were provided by Croatian Waters (water management autority) from Water Management Plan 2016-2021., Excerpt from the Register of Water Bodies.

Negative cross-border, upstream impacts are present in the Neretva Delta . Waterflow is lower because of that. Level of melioration is very high and intensive agriculture is present. ||
->Future: Due to planned projects is questionable uncertain future migration from the sea to freshwater habitats. It is expected that climate change and cross-border pressures in combination will have a significant negative impact on habitat quality. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: The estimate of population size is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. The population estimate is provided as a range whose minimum and maximum values are thus calculated:
• Minimum: as the intersection between the 1x1km grid, the main hydrographic network and the species' 10x10km distribution.
• Maximum: as the intersection between the 1x1km grid, the whole hydrographic network (the main plus the secondary till the 3rd order) and the species' 10x10km distribution. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Alosa fallax"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report