Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Hirudo medicinalis"
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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: Verschneidung der Vorkommenspunkt (Distribution) mit grids1x1 und Habitatmaskierung mit CorineLandCover-Klassen ||
->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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: De nouvelles stations devraient être découvertes ces prochaines années, permettant de mieux évaluer son aire de répartition. Celle ci devrait positivement évoluer. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Hirudo medicinalis"
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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: Anzahl Vorkommen = Anzahl 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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: De nouvelles stations devraient être découvertes ces prochaines années, permettant de mieux évaluer son aire de répartition. Celle ci devrait positivement évoluer. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: In recent years, much extra effort resulted in (re)discovery of sites, most likely historical populations. ||
->Population: Vorige periode gerapporteerd in individuen, nu in km-hokken.
De populatietrend is ingeschat door de expert op basis van de beschikbare gegevens. De gegevens uit het NEM waren onvoldoende voor het berekenen van een (statistisch betrouwbare) trend.
Toelichting schatting individuen op verzoek LNV: uit 2017 en 2018 zijn uit het NEM van zes populaties (poelen) gedetailleerde tellingen beschikbaar. De populatiegrootte varieert hier van 21 tot 351 individuen, gemiddeld 98. Er zijn 33 kilometerhokken bekend met Hirudo medicinalis. Aanname = twee poelen per kilometerhok met bloedzuigers (=66 km poelen) m.u.v. Udenhout (+25 poelen)=totaal 91 poelen/plassen. Het is onbekend hoeveel bloedzuigers in de overige poelen leven (losse waarnemingen). Gebaseerd op de minimum, maximum en gemiddelde waarden van de tellingen komt de schatting uit op MIN 91*21=1911, MAX 91*351=31941 of GEM 91*98=8918 individuen. ||
->HabInfo: Veel habitats van de medicinale bloedzuiger staan onder druk door verdroging (=kwaliteit habitat). ||
->Future: Veel populaties in Nederland lijken volledig afhankelijk van één poel of plas. Dat is een kwetsbaar uitgangspunt, gegeven het feit dat veel van die plekken slecht bereikbaar zijn voor zoogdieren en gevoelig zijn voor uitdroging, zoals bijvoorbeeld in 2018 zeer duidelijk is gebleken door de grote droogte.
De feitelijke toename van de range is te danken aan het feit dat de soort op twee plaatsen in Brabant mee lijkt te liften met boomkikkermaatregelen terwijl er (nog) geen zekere aanwijzingen zijn dat de soort van de andere locaties is verdwenen. Daarom is bij 10.1a gekozen voor 'poor', ondanks dat de range nu voldoende groot is en er een stijgende trend is.

Species is vulnerable to (long term) drought. Higher risk of long term drought in near future. ||
->Conclusion: 11.6 is vorige keer niet ingevuld. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The current range surface area calculation does not represent the real range surface area. Change in availability of underpinning mapping data has resulted in an apparent decrease in range area compared to 2013, but this is not due to genuine change. Expert opinion considers the trend in range to be stable. The real range surface area is considered to be the range in 2013 - 2935km2. The FRR in 2013 was 2163km2. The current range surface area is above the FRR. For further information see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->Population: The current population calculation does not represent the real population. Change in availability of distribution data has resulted in an apparent decrease in the population compared to 2013, but this is not due to genuine change. Expert opinion considers the trend in population to be stable. The population in 2013 was 30km2- 35km2. When map 10km range distribution data are viewed, there is an obvious correlation in coverage between the 2013 & 2019 reports. This indicates that differences in population calculations between 2013 and 2019 are likely to be due to data collection or sampling effort differences. There is no evidence for a genuine decline in species populations, evidence would generally indicate an improving picture for habitat for this species, which should at least ensure a stable population. For further information see the 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->HabInfo: In England, which holds c. 51% of the UK population, the occupied leech ponds themselves look, overall, in reasonable condition. However, the ability to spread to new water bodies continues to be challenging with respect to their water quality. Evidence from the Countryside Survey of the UK (2007) reported that 80% of ponds were in poor or very poor condition. Therefore, despite substantial improvements since 2007 across the UK, water quality management continues to be a major conservation concern for this species. ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Population is Overall stable; and Future trend of Habitat for the species is Overall stable. 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 less than the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Population reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Population size is stable and (ii) the current Population size is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Population.
Conclusion on Habitat for the species reached because: (i) the area of occupied and unoccupied sufficiently large and (ii) the habitat quality is suitable for the long-term survival of the species; and (iii) the short-term trend in both area and quality of habitat is increasing.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are Good; (ii) the Future prospects for Population are Good; and (iii) the Future prospects for Habitat for the species are Unknown.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Favourable because all of the conclusions are Favourable.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Population - stable, and Habitat for the species - increasing.
The reason for the change in the Overall assessment in Conservation Status between the 2013 and 2019 reporting is because the conclusion for Habitat for the species has changed from Unfavourable-inadequate to Favourable.
The reason for the change in the Overall trend in Conservation Status between the 2013 and 2019 reporting is because the Habitat for the species trend has changed from decreasing to increasing. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Increase in sites and thus range has increased due to better coverage of sampling. ||
->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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The overall trend should be U but the drop down menu is not active in the reporting tool, thus it is not techinically possible to select the trend. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Hirudo medicinalis"
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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Species should be much more widespread as currently known. All known localities are widely dispersed across whole area of country, indicating that species is widely distributed. ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: For range map 40 km buffer was made around the every distribution square (marine territories was not included). Range tool was not used. Number of localities slowly increased, but recurrent observations in same locality were made only in few localities. It is insufficient for determination of the trend direction. Favourable reference range and reference population should be same or a little bit greater, because habitat for the species is relative widely widespread in all territory of Latvia, but not cover regular whole country. No global limiting factors (e.g. climate, range) identified. The traditional medicine with this species become popular (officially wild specimens not used).

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: A species found in a variety of standing waters from dystrophic lakes to wetlands. However, most common in areas with soils rich in lime. The population seems to have been far more widespread in the early 1900s. Most likely it has suffered from the reduction of grazing animals in Sweden. Also, the decline in wetlands and amphibian populations is likely to have affected H. medicinalis.

The distribution in Sweden contains several core areas; Öland, Gotland, Northern Uppland/Southeast Gästrikland, and southern Skåne. Beside these there are isolated populations scattered in Götaland, Svealand and along the southern part of the Norrland coast.

Not red listed in Sweden 2015 (LC) but a candidate species for the 2020 red list. Globally red listed as NT by IUCN in 2014. Data for this species mainly from amateur reports on Artportalen but also from the biogeographical monitoring of amphibians. Evaluations largely based on expert judgment and partial observation data. A substantial uncertainty regarding status is the case for this species. ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: See 5.10 and 5.12 ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: See 5.10 and 5.12

Future prospects: change since 2013. Mainly change due issues regarding reduced grazing by cattle and by reduced status for amphibians due to invasive disease. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: See 5.10 and 5.12

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Hirudo medicinalis"
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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
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: General changes in the landscape and industrial pressures on the open landscape. Type in the continental area of the Czech Republic very rare. Here is the border area of occurrence and observability. There are a climatic and ecological limits. Outside border area. Very small and vulnerable sites. ||
->Other: The current area is complete, including the new (micro)site records.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Der Kenntnisstand im Norden und Osten Deutschlands ist deutlich besser als in anderen Bereichen Deutschlands und entspricht dort einer U1-Bewertung. ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: Verschneidung der Vorkommenspunkt (Distribution) mit grids1x1 und Habitatmaskierung mit CorineLandCover-Klassen ||
->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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: It is not possible to give any information on the species as there is no systematic national monitoring program for it. ||
->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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: De nouvelles stations devraient être découvertes ces prochaines années, permettant de mieux évaluer son aire de répartition. Celle ci devrait positivement évoluer. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Hirudo medicinalis"
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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Area is based on species observations for the period 2013-2018.
Change in reported values are due to the use of different unit in the range tool (grids5x5 in 2013 and grids10x10 in 2019). New sites have been discovered in the frame of the monitoring and represent an improved knowledge. ||
->Population: Population size and short-term trend are based on field observations from dedicated monitoring.
The population size is the number of sites with observation of the species.
The short-term-trend is based on repeated surveys in the sites known to be occupied by the species. The increased number of sites with the presence of the species is due to improved knowledge. ||
->HabInfo: The species is found in farmland ponds with a dense vegetation, and muddy banks for laying eggs. Larvae require amphibians (thin skin, less nutrient blood), where adults prefer mammals (thick skin, more nutrient blood). The number of ponds in farmland has decreased for decades, reducing both habitat and amphibians. The access limitation of the livestock to ponds reduced the availability of rich blood and the maintenance of muddy banks. Nature conservation organisations have restored and dug several ponds in the last few years, a first essential step to improve suitable habitats. In the name of other nature conservation aims, livestock access to the ponds is still avoided.
Known sites are highly isolated suggesting a fragmentation. ||
->Future: The range is composed of few isolated sites, easily susceptible to decline. The population might suffer from fragmentation. The species is weakly targetted in conservation measures. ||
->Conclusion: Historically believed to be common in farmland standing waters, especially ponds used for livestock watering. Suffers from the decline of its habitat and food sources (amphibians and livestock legs in water). Remaining sites are highly isolated. The species should be more taken into consideration in conservation measures. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Zasięg gatunku w przybliżeniu obejmuje cały kraj z wyjątkiem gór. Nawet przy zaniku poszczególnych populacji, zasięg nie powinien ulec zmniejszeniu.
Do obliczenia całkowitej powierzchni zasięgu w regionie biogeograficznym użyto standardowego algorytmu IT-tool. ||
->Population: Minimalną wielkość populacji podano w oparciu o liczbę pól 1x1km.
Gatunek szeroko rozpowszechniony w Polsce niżowej. Występuje jednak wyspowo i uznawany jest za rzadki, a przy tym na ogół nieliczny na znanych stanowiskach. ||
->HabInfo: Obecną jakość siedlisk i ich powierzchnię można uznać wystarczające dla długoterminowego przetrwania gatunku. Gatunek wymaga siedlisk posiadających liczne wypłycenia, szuwary. Jednak te elementy krajobrazu szybko znikają, powodując coraz większą izolację istniejących stanowisk oraz zanikanie stanowisk z gatunkiem. Z drugiej zaś strony, pijawka lekarska może występować w większych zbiornikach np… Jeziorach polodowcowych o ile występują mikrosiedliska cechujące się gęstym pokryciem makrofitami i dobrym nasłonecznieniem. ||
->Future: Oceny perspektyw dla populacji i siedliska wynikają z pogarszania się jakości siedlisk, poważnych oddziaływań, do których poza obniżaniem poziomu wód gruntowych należy zaliczyć pojawianie się obcych gatunków z rodzaju Hirudo. Natomiast nie przewiduje się pogorszenia stanu zasiegu w perspektywie najbliższych 12 lat. ||
->Conclusion: Zasadniczo trudno ocenić zmiany w stanie ochrony. W poprzednim okresie raportowania uznany on był za nieznany. Wydaje się, że sytuacja gatunku jest obecnie stabilna. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Zasięg i rozmieszczenie:
Gatunek szeroko rozpowszechniony poza górami. Zasięg w przybliżeniu obejmuje cały kraj. Podobnie jak w poprzednim okresie raportowania zasięg oceniono, jako właściwy – FV.

Populacja:
W poprzednim okresie raportowania stan populacji oceniono jako niezadowalający. Obecna wiedza o zanikaniu siedlisk, ograniczaniem ilości siedlisk każe uznać, że obecnie stan populacji jest również niezadowalający.
Wartości referencyjne (zasięg i populacja):
Referencyjny zasięg uznano obecnie za zbliżony do aktualnego, ze względu na szerokie rozpowszechnienie gatunku. Jest to taka sama ocena jak w poprzednim okresie raportowania. Natomiast referencyjna populacja powinna być większa od obecnej. Gatunek może być w zaniku, w związku z zanikiem siedlisk i aby do dalszego zanikania nie dopuścić należy dążyć do odtwarzania siedlisk gatunku. Poprzednio referencyjna populacja została uznana również za większą od aktualnej.
Siedlisko:
Siedlisko oceniono tak samo jak w poprzednim raporcie (stan niezadowalający U1). Pomimo, że nadal w krajobrazie zachowało się wiele miejsc dogodnych dla gatunku to obserwuje się ich zanik oraz przekształcanie. W szczególności odnosi się to do naturalnych zbiorników wodnych wymagających odpowiedniego reżimu wodnego.
Perspektywy ochrony:
Poprzednio perspektywy uznano podobnie jak teraz za niezadowalające. Ocena wynika z pogarszania się, jakości siedlisk, poważnych oddziaływań, do których poza obniżaniem poziomu wód gruntowych należy zaliczyć pojawianie się obcych gatunków z rodzaju Hirudo.
Ocena ogólna:
Jest niezadowalająca, tak jak w poprzednim okresie raportowania. Na taki stan rzeczy mają wpływ niskie oceny pozostałych parametrów (poza zasięgiem). Możliwe jest pogorszenie stanu ochrony jeszcze przed następnym etapem raportowania. Poprzednio nie przewidywano kierunku zmian w ochronie, obecnie wydaje się, że stan ochrony się pogorszy w najbliższym czasie.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Hirudo medicinalis"
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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: A species found in a variety of standing waters from dystrophic lakes to wetlands. However, most common in areas with soils rich in lime. The population seems to have been far more widespread in the early 1900s. Most likely it has suffered from the reduction of grazing animals in Sweden. Also, the decline in wetlands and amphibian populations is likely to have affected H. medicinalis.

The distribution in Sweden contains several core areas; Öland, Gotland, Northern Uppland/Southeast Gästrikland, and southern Skåne. Beside these there are isolated populations scattered in Götaland, Svealand and along the southern part of the Norrland coast.

Not red listed in Sweden 2015 (LC) but a candidate species for the 2020 red list. Globally red listed as NT by IUCN in 2014. Data for this species mainly from amateur reports on Artportalen but also from the biogeographical monitoring of amphibians. Evaluations largely based on expert judgment and partial observation data. A substantial uncertainty regarding status is the case for this species. ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: See 5.10 and 5.12

Future prospects: change since 2013. Mainly change due issues regarding reduced grazing by cattle and by reduced status for amphibians due to invasive disease. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Hirudo medicinalis"
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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: Two resettled sites (high eutrophication and fish farming, ducks). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: The species is also in the Czech Republic Pannonian rare. One site was destroyed (dredging), was examined 7 historic sites and a potential. Problematic are the individual data on occurrence in the lower reaches of large rivers (Morava/Dyje - Moravia/Thaya) and next to them periodically flooded pools. We assume that the population here is not stable and is expected to transport the above-lying areas. Surface area and population is significant at 6 sites (nature reserves). ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Hirudo medicinalis"
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: "Hirudo medicinalis"
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