Digital Conditions, Platform Logic, and MME’s Strategic Position in the Sequence
This report is a strategic document, not a platform guide. It does not analyze specific social media applications, recommend particular tools, or make predictions about which digital channels will endure. Platforms are named only where necessary to illustrate structural arguments, and the analysis is built around capabilities and conditions rather than products. The digital environment changes faster than institutional strategy can respond; a report organized around specific platforms would be obsolete within years of its writing. A report organized around the structural logic of digital conditions should remain useful regardless of which platforms exist when the MME opens its doors.
This report is also an argument with the series itself. The report on ceramics and textiles established the Fine Art Recognition Framework the MME intends to follow. The Language Problem — The Italian Critical Tradition made the case for building a critical apparatus. The Collector Gap documented the collector landscape. All three were written without engaging the question of how digital conditions change the sequence those reports assume. This report asks that question and answers it.
Fine Art Recognition Framework: MME’s methodology for building the critical, economic, and institutional infrastructure required to move historically excluded art forms into fine art recognition.
Search for mosaic on any major digital platform and you find an enormous, active, commercially sophisticated community. Artists with substantial followings sell work directly to collectors through their own channels, run online courses with thousands of enrolled students, build waiting lists without gallery representation, and generate critical discourse — argument, analysis, comparison, advocacy — among themselves and their audiences at a volume and velocity that no print publication could match. The community is real, the commerce is real, and the criticism, in its own register, is real.
Now search for mosaic in the acquisition records of major contemporary art museums. In the archive of Artforum, Frieze, or Art in America. In the results of the three major auction houses’ contemporary art sales. The same medium. Almost nothing.
This gap — between a digitally visible, commercially active, critically engaged community and an institutionally invisible one — is the diagnostic finding that motivates this report. The mosaic community has done the work that digital channels make possible. It has built audiences, generated demand, established taste hierarchies, and created the conditions for commercial relationships that bypass traditional gallery infrastructure entirely. What it has not done, because digital channels cannot do it, is convert that reach into the kind of durable institutional recognition that changes appraisal values, generates acquisition policies, and produces the archival record that the art world uses to establish a medium’s legitimate status.
The Fine Art Recognition Framework established in the report on ceramics and textiles was built from the ceramics and textiles cases: a sequence of feminist scholarship, institutional exhibitions, auction house placement, critical engagement, and market recognition that unfolded across two to four decades, through specific institutional channels, in a largely pre-digital environment. The MME was conceived to execute that sequence for mosaic. It will execute it in 2026, not 1982. The report that established the strategy did not ask what changes when the conditions change. This report asks that question.
The answer is not that the sequence becomes obsolete. It is that the sequence becomes non-linear, and that a non-linear sequence requires a different institutional strategy to navigate.
The contrast is stark enough to state plainly. The Society of American Mosaic Artists, founded in 1998, maintains a digital presence that reaches a global community of practitioners and collectors. Individual mosaic artists have built followings large enough to sustain full commercial practices without gallery representation. Online mosaic courses generate revenue that academic art programs cannot approach. The medium has a living, economically active community that any gallery director would recognize as a collector base in formation.
At the same time: a mosaic work that took two years to complete and required mastery of a technical vocabulary that has no parallel in any other medium will, in most institutional contexts, be appraised as a craft object. It will be ineligible for acquisition by institutions that restrict their collecting to fine art. It will not be reviewed by the critics who shape the market. Its artist will not be represented by the dealers who place work with major collectors. The digital community exists in a register that the institutional apparatus does not yet read.
The Fine Art Recognition Framework was designed to change that institutional reality. The question this report addresses is whether the sequence still works the way the report on ceramics and textiles described it, or whether the digital environment has changed the conditions under which the sequence operates — and therefore the strategy the MME needs to execute.
The report on ceramics and textiles documents the movement of ceramics into fine art standing as a sequence of recognizable stages: a foundational critical argument dismantling the hierarchical logic of the craft classification; institutional validation through dedicated museum exhibitions; the development of dealer infrastructure willing to represent the medium in fine art contexts; collector positioning that established new taste expectations among significant buyers; the emergence of a critical apparatus engaging the medium in fine art terms; auction reclassification that placed key works in contemporary art sales rather than decorative arts; and, finally, sustained market recognition — the condition in which the medium’s fine art status is no longer contested but assumed.
Each stage was a prerequisite for the next. Critical argument had to establish the intellectual foundation before institutions would risk dedicated exhibitions. Institutional exhibitions had to validate the medium before dealers would commit to representation. Dealer infrastructure had to exist before significant collectors would position themselves in the market. And so on through the chain. The sequence was linear because each node depended on the previous one having activated. The sequence took decades in part because each stage required the institutional infrastructure of the previous stage to be in place before it could begin.
The linear sequence embedded a set of assumptions about how cultural value is established that were accurate descriptions of how the art world actually worked in the 1980s and 1990s. Criticism required publication infrastructure — access to print journals with institutional distribution — because criticism that circulated only in informal channels did not accumulate into the kind of documented record that institutions could cite. Collectors required dealer access because there was no other reliable channel for discovering, evaluating, and acquiring work from living artists. Institutional validation required physical exhibition because the alternative — documentation, reproduction, description — was not considered adequate evidence of the work’s presence and quality.
Each of these assumptions has been substantially disrupted. Criticism no longer requires institutional publication to circulate at scale and generate documented discourse. Collectors have acquired direct access to artists, works, and markets that previously required dealer mediation. Institutional validation through physical exhibition remains powerful, but it no longer has a monopoly on the kind of public attention that changes a medium’s cultural status. The conditions that made the sequence linear have changed. The sequence itself has not yet been updated to reflect that.
The most straightforward effect of digital conditions on the sequence is speed. Criticism that previously required years of publication in print journals to accumulate into a legible body of discourse can now accumulate in months through digital channels — newsletters, online publications, podcasts, and the archivable comment layers of social media platforms. An artist who might have spent a decade building a documented critical record can build a comparable volume of documented response in a fraction of that time.
This acceleration is real and consequential, but it is not evenly distributed across the sequence. The stages that involve producing documented discourse — critical argument, collector positioning, the early formation of a critical apparatus — are meaningfully accelerated by digital conditions. The stages that involve institutional decision-making — museum exhibitions, auction house placement, the formal revision of appraisal frameworks — are not. Institutions move at institutional speed. A museum’s acquisition committee meets on an institutional calendar regardless of how fast the discourse outside the building is moving.
The more disruptive effect of digital conditions is not acceleration but inversion: the ability to run stages in the reverse of their original sequence. In the ceramics model, collector positioning (stage 4) could not precede dealer infrastructure (stage 3) because there was no other channel through which significant collectors could find and acquire work. Digital channels provide that channel. An artist can now build a collector base of several hundred committed buyers through direct digital relationships — without gallery representation, without auction history, and without the critical apparatus that, in the original sequence, was supposed to prepare the ground for collectors to arrive.
This is not a theoretical possibility. It is a documented pattern in the current collector market. The Collector Gap notes that the 2024–2025 collector landscape includes a significant cohort of digitally native buyers — younger collectors allocating substantial portions of their acquisition budgets to work discovered through non-traditional channels. These collectors are not waiting for gallery representation to validate the work they are acquiring. They are forming their own judgments through direct engagement with artists and their communities, and they are doing so at a scale and pace that the traditional sequence did not anticipate.
Beyond inversion, digital conditions allow multiple stages to run simultaneously rather than sequentially. Critical argument, community building, collector positioning, and the early formation of a critical apparatus can all be underway at once — feeding each other in ways that the linear model’s dependency structure did not account for. A body of online criticism can create the conditions for collector interest at the same time that institutional engagement is being sought; neither has to wait for the other to complete.
Digital channels can also substitute, partially, for stages that previously required infrastructure the medium lacked. In the absence of a dedicated critical apparatus in legacy publications, online criticism — newsletters, independent publications, documented social media discourse — can perform some of the functions of that apparatus: building a documented record of serious engagement, establishing comparative frameworks, creating the language with which the medium can be discussed in fine art terms. This is not a complete substitution — the critical apparatus problem that The Language Problem — The Italian Critical Tradition identifies is real and requires structural solutions, not digital workarounds. But it is a meaningful partial function that did not exist when the ceramics sequence was unfolding.
The digital environment does not produce archival permanence. A body of online discourse, however substantial, does not automatically become part of the documented record that art historians, appraisers, and acquisition committees consult. Platforms change. Links break. Content migrates, disappears, or becomes inaccessible. Institutions must maintain that documentation: publication in citable form, archival deposit, the kind of permanence that a URL alone cannot guarantee.
The digital environment does not produce appraisal infrastructure. An artist with a large digital following and a robust direct-to-collector market is still appraised by reference to comparable sales in institutional contexts. If those comparable sales don’t exist — if the medium has never been placed in a fine art auction, never been formally acquired by a significant museum, never been the subject of an insurance appraisal conducted under fine art frameworks — the digital market’s evidence of demand does not translate into revised valuations. The appraisal system is institutional, and it changes at institutional speed.
The digital environment does not produce the kind of critical authority that changes acquisition policy. A museum’s decision to add a medium to its collecting scope is driven by its curatorial staff, its board, its institutional relationships with dealers and donors, and the documented critical record in forms the institution recognizes as authoritative. Online discourse contributes to the cultural climate in which that decision is made, but it does not substitute for the institutional relationships and citable documentation that drive the decision itself.
The table below maps the original seven-stage sequence against the specific changes digital conditions introduce, and identifies the MME’s role at each stage.
| Stage | Original Sequence | Digital Condition | MME Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Critical argument establishes the intellectual foundation | Accelerated: online criticism builds documented discourse faster; but legacy publication still required for institutional citation | Publishes in citable form; validates online discourse through institutional endorsement |
| 2 | Institutional validation through dedicated museum exhibitions | Not accelerated: institutions move on institutional timelines regardless of digital discourse volume | Provides the institutional exhibition that digital channels cannot substitute for |
| 3 | Dealer infrastructure commits to representing the medium | Partially substituted: direct artist-to-collector channels reduce dependence on dealer mediation, but major collectors still operate through dealers | Establishes commissioning rates that give dealers a reference point; creates market comparables through its own acquisitions |
| 4 | Collector positioning establishes new taste expectations | Inverted: digitally native collectors can form before dealer and critical infrastructure; builds faster and at greater scale | Converts digital collector interest into documented institutional relationships; provides acquisition records that validate collector taste |
| 5 | Critical apparatus engages medium on fine art terms | Partially substituted: online criticism performs some functions but lacks the archival permanence and institutional authority of legacy publications | Creates publishing program that produces citable, permanent critical record; the critical language The Language Problem — The Italian Critical Tradition identifies as absent |
| 6 | Auction reclassification places key works in contemporary art sales | Not substituted: auction placement still requires institutional relationships and market comparables that digital channels cannot produce | Generates the comparable sales and appraisal precedents that support auction house placement |
| 7 | Market recognition: medium’s fine art status assumed, not contested | Digital reach can generate a version of recognition that is real but reversible; durable recognition still requires institutional anchor | Provides the institutional permanence that converts digital recognition into durable market status |
The most important thing the digital environment can produce for a medium pursuing fine art standing is reach: the rapid accumulation of audience, attention, and documented engagement at a scale and speed that no pre-digital strategy could approach. Reach is genuinely valuable. It creates the conditions for stages 1, 4, and 5 to run faster and at greater scale than the ceramics sequence achieved. It builds the community of practice, the collector base in formation, and the critical discourse that the sequence needs.
Reach is not recognition. Recognition, in the sense that matters for durable market reclassification, requires an institutional anchor — a node in the sequence that converts digital attention into the documented, appraisable, archivable evidence that institutional decision-makers can act on. Without that anchor, digital reach produces something that looks like fine art standing but is structurally different: cultural visibility that is real in the moment and reversible over time.
Digital positioning without institutional anchor is reversible. This is the cautionary finding that the current period of art market history makes visible. Media and movements that built significant digital followings without corresponding institutional validation have experienced trajectories that the traditional Fine Art Recognition Framework did not predict: rapid ascent, plateau, and in some cases sharp decline, as the attention economy moved on and the institutional infrastructure that would have made the recognition durable was never built.
The pattern is not unique to digital contexts — movements have always faded when institutional support failed to materialize. What digital conditions add is speed in both directions: faster ascent without institutional anchor, and faster reversibility when that anchor is absent. A medium that achieves digital visibility without building the institutional infrastructure to hold that visibility has not arrived. It is trending.
Digital channels have specific capabilities and specific limits. The institutional infrastructure is what converts reach into something that lasts.
The most extreme version of sequence inversion in recent art market history unfolded in the market for blockchain-authenticated digital artworks in 2021–2022. In that episode, collector positioning (stage 4), and in some cases market recognition (stage 7), occurred with essentially no prior critical argument (stage 1), institutional validation (stage 2), or dealer infrastructure (stage 3). The sequence ran almost entirely in reverse, driven by speculative collector demand and the mechanics of a novel market structure.
The result was market recognition of a kind that proved highly unstable. Without the institutional infrastructure that the traditional sequence builds — critical apparatus, museum validation, appraisal frameworks, archival permanence — the market recognition evaporated almost as quickly as it arrived. The episode is not evidence that the traditional sequence is unnecessary. It is the most dramatic available demonstration of what happens when it is bypassed entirely. Status without institutional anchor is not legitimacy. It is a market event.
The MME is not in the business of generating market events. It is in the business of building durable institutional recognition for a medium that has been systematically excluded from the frameworks that produce that recognition. The digital environment offers tools that can accelerate and augment that project. The sequence itself — modified for digital conditions but not abandoned — remains the strategy.
The MME’s strategic position in this sequence is stronger than it would have been in 1982. A pre-digital institution functioning as the ceramics case’s institutional champion had to build audience as well as credibility — the community of practice, the collector awareness, the public interest in the medium all required cultivation through the institution’s own programs because there were no other channels through which they could develop at scale.
The MME will open into an existing community. The mosaic practitioners, the digitally engaged collectors, the documented online discourse — these exist already. The institution does not need to create them. What it needs to do is convert them: take the reach and attention that digital channels have generated and give them the institutional weight that converts reach into durable recognition. This is a different function from the one the ceramics case required of its institutional champion, and it requires a different institutional strategy.
Legitimacy conversion is not a passive function. It requires active, specific institutional decisions that produce the kind of documented evidence that appraisers, acquisition committees, and auction houses can act on.
Exhibition produces the first form of that evidence. A mosaic work exhibited in a serious institutional context — with scholarly catalog, documented provenance, and professional installation — has a different status than the same work photographed and posted to a digital platform, regardless of how many people saw the digital image. The exhibition generates a citable record. It produces insurance documentation. It creates a public event that critics can review in citable publications. Digital documentation of the exhibition extends its reach and accelerates the accumulation of discourse; the exhibition itself is the institutional act that the documentation records.
Acquisition produces the second form of evidence. When the MME acquires a mosaic work — at a published price, under a documented contract, with full attribution — it creates a market comparable. That comparable enters the appraisal system as reference data. It gives dealers a number to work from. It gives auction houses a basis for placement decisions. It gives collectors a validated reference point for their own acquisitions. A single documented institutional acquisition does more for the appraisal framework than any volume of undocumented digital sales, not because the digital sales aren’t real but because they don’t enter the system that produces appraisal infrastructure.
Publication produces the third form of evidence. The MME’s publishing program — catalog essays, scholarly monographs, critical writings that engage mosaic on fine art terms — creates the citable record that the critical apparatus requires. Online discourse can perform the generative function of criticism: developing ideas, building community around those ideas, creating the conditions for a formal critical apparatus to emerge. Publication converts that discourse into the permanent, citable form that institutions and appraisers recognize. A Substrate of Exclusion is an early instance of this function: institutional research in published form, creating a documented record of the analytical framework for the Fine Art Recognition Framework.
The digital environment has rendered many traditional institutional functions substitutable. The physical museum remains irreplaceable. The institution retains specific capabilities that digital channels cannot replicate: the experience of being in the presence of the work at full scale; the credentialing authority of the museum’s scholarly and curatorial judgment; the archival permanence of the physical collection and its associated records; the appraisal weight of the institutional acquisition.
An immersive mosaic museum — one in which the medium is encountered at architectural scale, in light conditions and spatial relationships that are specific to the work rather than incidental to it — offers an experience that is structurally unavailable through digital channels. This is not a minor point. The digital image of a mosaic is a record of a mosaic. The mosaic itself, in the space for which it was made, under the light that the mosaicist designed it to inhabit, is a categorically different encounter. The MME’s physical program is the experience that motivates the documentation, the criticism, the collector interest, and the institutional discourse that digital channels then extend and amplify. The digital environment makes that amplification faster and more scalable. The physical institution remains the irreplaceable source of the experience being amplified.
The digital environment makes the amplification faster. The physical institution is what is being amplified.
The following principles are derived from the structural analysis above. They are stated in platform-agnostic terms because specific platforms are transient and the strategic logic is not. The MME’s digital strategy should be rebuilt periodically as the platform landscape changes; the principles below should remain stable across those rebuilds.
The digital dimension of MME’s institutional strategy should be explicitly designed to do two different things through two different kinds of activity: build reach through digital channels, and build recognition through institutional acts. These are not the same activity and should not be confused. Content that builds digital reach — documentation of works in progress, artist profiles, contextual historical content, the accessible public face of the institution’s scholarship — is valuable for the community it builds and the collector pipeline it develops. It is not the same as the institutional acts that produce durable recognition. Both are necessary. They should be planned as distinct tracks with distinct success metrics.
The three stages that digital conditions most meaningfully accelerate are critical argument (stage 1), collector positioning (stage 4), and the early formation of a critical apparatus (stage 5). The MME’s digital strategy should be concentrated where the acceleration is real. Making scholarly argument accessible through digital channels builds the intellectual foundation faster than print alone. Building direct relationships with digitally native collectors — at the point in their collecting development when taste is being formed rather than entrenched — is more efficient than pursuing established collectors who have already oriented their acquisition programs around the existing hierarchy. Supporting and amplifying the online critical discourse that already exists in the mosaic community converts informal criticism into the kind of documented body of argument that a formal critical apparatus can build from.
The stages that require institutional infrastructure — exhibition (stage 2), auction placement (stage 6), and the definitive market recognition that follows from sustained institutional validation (stage 7) — cannot be substituted by digital equivalents. The MME’s institutional program should be designed to execute these stages with the full weight of its institutional authority, and should not treat digital attention as evidence that the institutional work has been done. A medium that is trending online is not a medium that has arrived. The institutional acts remain necessary, and they require institutional investment and institutional relationships to execute.
The documentation the MME generates through its digital programs is part of its archival responsibility. Links break. Platforms change. The digital record of an exhibition, a commission, an artist’s relationship with the institution, is only as durable as the institutional commitment to maintaining it. The MME’s governance documents include explicit commitments to digital archival practice, on the same level as commitments to physical collection care. These commitments will include: stable URL structures maintained through all website and organizational transitions; periodic archival export of digital documentation to non-proprietary formats; institutional deposit of the digital record in appropriate archival repositories; and documented responsibility for maintaining the attribution records established under The Workshop Tradition‘s QR code standard. This is not a technology question. It is an institutional governance question of the same order as the commitments to physical collection care.
The digitally native collectors who form a relationship with the MME through digital channels before the physical institution opens are an institutional asset of the first order. They represent the collector positioning stage of the sequence running ahead of the institutional validation stage — which is exactly the kind of non-linear sequence the digital environment makes possible and the MME should actively cultivate. The strategy for this population is not to treat them as passive audience but to develop genuine institutional relationships: early acquisition programs, named supporter structures, programming access that deepens the relationship between the collector and the medium. The goal is to convert digital audience into institutional stakeholders before the physical institution opens, so that the community of practice and the collector base arrive with the institution rather than having to be built after it.
The following commitments translate the strategic analysis above into specific institutional decisions. They are operational, not aspirational.
The MME will maintain an explicit distinction between its reach-building digital program and its recognition-building institutional program. Reach-building digital activity — content, community engagement, documentation of institutional programs, accessible scholarly communication — will be evaluated by reach metrics and community engagement. Recognition-building institutional activity — exhibitions, acquisitions, publications, commissioning — will be evaluated by the institutional markers of the sequence. The two tracks will be planned and resourced separately, with distinct staff ownership and distinct success criteria.
The MME’s founding governance documents will include explicit commitments to digital archival practice, on the same level as commitments to physical collection care. These commitments will include: stable URL structures maintained through all website and organizational transitions; periodic archival export of digital documentation to non-proprietary formats; institutional deposit of the digital record in appropriate archival repositories; and documented responsibility for maintaining the attribution records established under The Workshop Tradition‘s QR code standard. The digital record is an institutional record. Its maintenance is an institutional responsibility.
The MME will develop a pre-opening program specifically designed to establish institutional relationships with digitally native collectors before the physical institution opens. This program will be structured as a genuine institutional relationship — with named supporter status, programming access, and direct engagement with the MME’s curatorial and scholarly program — rather than a digital marketing exercise. The goal is to arrive at opening with a collector community that has an institutional relationship with the MME, not merely a digital following.
The MME’s publishing program will include digital-first critical publication as a distinct strand, alongside its traditional scholarly publication program. Digital-first critical writing — essay series, critical documentation, accessible scholarly argument — will be produced in formats designed for digital distribution and archival permanence simultaneously: stable URLs, archival deposit, and periodic print compilation. The distinction between The Language Problem — The Italian Critical Tradition‘s critical apparatus and the digital criticism that already exists in the mosaic community is partly a distinction of format and institutional backing. The MME can close that gap by giving digital critical writing institutional backing without requiring it to go through the bottleneck of traditional print publication.
The Fine Art Recognition Framework argument in A Substrate of Exclusion rests on a sequence: the medium is fine art; the hierarchy that classified it as craft was a political construction with economic stakes; the construction can be dismantled by the same mechanisms that built it, deployed in reverse. That argument is correct. The sequence the report on ceramics and textiles derived from the ceramics case is the right sequence. This report has not proposed replacing it.
What this report has done is update the conditions under which the sequence will be executed. The digital environment accelerates some stages and compresses others. It enables sequence inversion that the ceramics model did not anticipate and cannot fully account for. It creates forms of reach and community and collector positioning that did not exist when the Fine Art Recognition Framework was built — and it creates new failure modes for institutions that mistake that reach for the durable recognition they are trying to achieve.
The MME’s institutional position in this updated sequence is specific: not gatekeeper, which is the function the pre-digital institution performed, but legitimacy converter — the node that takes what digital conditions make fast and scalable and gives it the institutional weight that makes it permanent. Reach extended through digital channels. Recognition anchored through institutional acts. The two are not interchangeable. They are complementary, and the institution is where they meet.
The series was built on the argument that the MME is being founded to change something. It will be founded in a world where the tools for changing it are faster, more scalable, and more accessible than they have ever been. The strategy needs to know what those tools can do — and what they cannot do, and what only the institution can do instead. This report is that knowledge, in working form.
Art Basel & UBS (2025). The Art Basel and UBS Art Market Report. [Gen Z collector allocation data; digital-native collector behavior.]
Sotheby’s Insight Report: Women Artists (2025). [Collector market data cited in The Collector Gap.]
Artsy (2024). The Women Artists Market Report 2024. [Collector data; emerging market patterns.]
Thompson, D. (2017). Hit Makers: The Science of Popularity in an Age of Distraction. New York: Penguin Press. [On the mechanics of reach and attention in digital environments.]
Velthuis, O. & Curioni, S.B. (eds.) (2015). Cosmopolitan Canvases: The Globalization of Markets for Contemporary Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [On market structure; predates digital-native collector analysis but provides institutional framework.]
Anderson, C. (2006). The Long Tail. New York: Hyperion. [On the structural economics of niche cultural markets enabled by digital distribution; the framework relevant to community formation before institutional validation.]
Forensic Examination of Aesthetic Value in the Market: The seven-stage ceramics sequence; the institutional mechanisms of fine art reclassification. Primary reference for this report’s argument with its own premises.
The Collector Gap: Collector data including Gen Z allocation figures; the digital-native collector as an emerging market segment.
The Language Problem — The Italian Critical Tradition: The critical apparatus argument; the absence of critics for mosaic. This report addresses the digital dimension of that absence.
The Workshop Tradition: The QR code standard and digital archival governance; the permanence problem for digital attribution records.
Class, Craft, and the Tradesman’s Hand: The class argument underlying the Fine Art Recognition Framework; the institutional anchor as legitimacy converter.
This report was developed through an iterative, fact-checked, and edited collaborative research process between Rachael Que Vargas and Anthropic’s Claude (in two roles — long-form research and document operations). The questions, institutional framework, and editorial judgment are the author’s; the research synthesis and structural development are collaborative.
© 2026 Rachael Que Vargas / Museum of Mosaic Environments. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). You may share and adapt this work for non-commercial purposes with attribution. Full license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/