The biggest question — what joins MRSS as a 6G migration option — was postponed to December with homework; the firmest decisions were an approved NTN scope and a no to looser transmitters for Rel-20. This article starts with the open question and then covers what was settled: the approved scope, the no with a conditional maybe, and the smaller yeses and noes.
Migration: postponed with homework (8.2.1.1)
Question: which additional migration option, if any, joins MRSS — and when?
The plenary did not pick one. It endorsed the RAN2 chair's way-forward "On MRSS, Migration, and Spectrum Aggregation" (RP-262262), which postpones the decision on an additional migration option to RAN#114: "Postpone the decision for additional migration option to RAN#114" [E21]. MRSS itself was not in question — the same text requires that "[e]fficient sharing of at least NR and 6GR DL control channel resources shall be supported in 6GR" [E21].
The December homework has four parts, all in the endorsed text: decide on the split bearer in RAN#114 for options 1/2; keep discussing a simplified Option 3 variant; ask SA2 to confirm that variant's feasibility no later than RAN#114; and leave the final word on it to SA — "SA will make final decision on this option" [E21]. The simplified variant means no RAN impact expected or specified, no core-network aggregation and no traffic split: the phone holds two single registrations — to 5GC on the NR leg and to 6GC on the 6GR leg — with 5G voice (VoNR) on the 5G leg and 6G data on the 6G leg under network-controlled mobility [E21].
The proposals on the table show who pushed what. A single coalition filed twice for the same thing — Option 1, a 6G anchor in dual connectivity with 5G: first 11 companies fronted by Samsung [E1]/[S1], then the same 11 plus BT, Deutsche Telekom and Turkcell [E4]/[S2] — one coalition, two documents, one proposal. Deutsche Telekom later withdrew its support for the second filing in the room [S2]. Four companies — Boost Mobile Network, AST SpaceMobile, Skylo and EchoStar — proposed a dual-stack approach for SA to evaluate [E6]/[S3]. Nokia, as sole signatory, proposed keeping additional dual-stack, dual-registration, and anchored dual-connectivity mechanisms out of the 6G study [E2]/[S4] — while backing further study of non-collocated FR1-FR2 aggregation on a lighter-weight framework, the topic the endorsed study task took up [E3]/[S4]. None of the four filings was adopted or rejected — no outcome is recorded for any of them, so this article reports them as open, not as deferred verdicts.
One resemblance is worth noting: the surviving simplified variant echoes the dual-stack pitch — aggregation outside the RAN, no RAN impact, SA to evaluate [E6]/[S3] — narrowed to two single registrations under network-controlled mobility [E21]; whether the chair's text drew on that filing is not in the record. The surviving variant sits close to what Nokia asked to exclude: functionally, two single registrations resemble the dual-registration mechanisms in Nokia's Proposal 1 [E21]/[S4], though the chair's text avoids that term.
The one study task that did get agreed comes from the same endorsed document (slide 3): RAN2 will study 6G–6G spectrum aggregation across separate (non-collocated) base stations over non-ideal backhaul up to 10 ms, aiming at a multi-vendor interoperable solution [E3].
Separately, the plenary approved a reply to SA2 and SA on migration and interworking status — the text asks SA WG2 to "determine the feasibility" of the simplified variant and inform RAN by RAN#114 [E23]. At SA#113, meeting the same week, the RAN Chair presented the way-forward; SA WG2 "were requested to provide feedback on the simplified option 3", with the final decision reserved to SA, due no later than SA#114 [E23]. The written reply itself (SP-261005) was postponed [E23].
Why it matters: migration architecture drives hardware design and operator investment timing. Unknown: the record shows co-signatories but no plenary vote or ratios, so this article makes no claim about how much support each option commanded in the room.
NTN: revised scope approved (9.3.4.6)
Question: what must the specifications cover for the NTN work item's next phase?
The plenary approved a revised scope for the existing work item "Enhanced requirements for NR NTN and IoT NTN Phase 2" (RP-262261, end of a revision chain going back to the last approved WID) — "The document was approved" [E13–E17]. This is a scope revision, not a new work item: it defines what the specifications must cover, while binding requirements arrive only with approved change requests and specifications.
The revised scope covers high-power (PC1.5) phones with two-antenna transmit diversity and single-layer uplink MIMO — explicitly not dual-layer [E13]; intra-band downlink carrier aggregation within a single satellite access node (intra-SAN), targeting all existing UE power classes [E14]; a new Mobile VSAT device type and its capability signalling, handled by RAN2, plus the carrier-aggregation capabilities [E15]; updated collision-handling rules from RAN1 for HD-FDD VSATs with FR2 numerology [E16]; and the finalized list of specifications to update [E17]. RAN4 carries the RF and RRM requirements; RAN1 (collision rules) and RAN2 (capability signalling) get defined pieces of the work — all assigned in the approval itself [E14][E15][E16].
No rejection or deferral is recorded in this item. That does not mean NTN is settled: other access variants and the timing-command range stayed open in RAN1 (Q3 NTN report).
Why it matters: unlike studies, an approved work-item scope is a work order with direct impact on chips, conformance testing, and operator deployment plans.
Transmitters: no for Rel-20, maybe for 6G (9.3.4.1)
Question: which release gets the looser transmitter — Rel-20 5G-Advanced, or 6G?
EVM (error vector magnitude) measures how cleanly a phone transmits. The idea under study is two sides of one mechanism: relax the EVM limit so the phone can drive its power amplifier harder into saturation — "drive the PA to saturation region with increased power" — and let the base station unwrap the extra distortion with non-AI DPoD (digital post-distortion — compensation of the distortion at the base-station receiver). In these documents the two travel together: degraded EVM on the phone side, power boosting as the resulting gain, DPoD unwrapping it at the base station [T1][T2]. Verizon's commercial test is verifying "that the UE is creating more power boosting than the BS loss under degraded EVM" [T2].
For Rel-20 5G-Advanced the answer is no, and it is a decision, not a failure to agree: no normative work on transmitter EVM relaxation [E18]. RAN4 reported link-level gains between −0.8 and 4.2 dB for non-AI DPoD, while a co-signed assessment by Nokia, Ericsson, ZTE, Sanechips, Qualcomm, Vodafone, Murata, Motorola Mobility and T-Mobile USA caps the net gain below 3 dB — most likely below 2 dB once SNR loss is subtracted — with system-level simulation, UE models, signalling, and testability all unresolved [T1]. The other side of the room: Huawei, which moderated the discussion, supported the proposed Rel-20 objectives [T2], and CATT described the DPoD receiver role [T1]. On that record the plenary endorsed the proposed conclusion: "proposed conclusion in 3.1 is endorsed" [E18]. Verizon, writing "from an operator's perspective", put the commercial logic bluntly: it wants "to understand the E2E gain and have ways to ensure the gain before we want to invest in the network feature" [T2].
For Rel-21 the feature survives as a potential objective under the 6G work item, "assuming 6G study is completed and shows gain" [E19]. A later transfer to 5G-Advanced Rel-21 is possible only if the design proves transferable — "assuming it is not based on 1024QAM and not relying on some specific aspect of the 6G air interface" [E19]. For the related study item (1024QAM, AI alignment), no outcome is recorded [E20].
Same item, outside the EVM discussion: the plenary approved TR 38.766 (one-step approval), a coexistence study on high-power phones transmitting at up to 32 dBm [E24] — and Qualcomm withdrew its DPoD-handling paper for 5G-Advanced [E25].
Requirements: one small yes, three discarded texts (8.2.1.2, 8.3.1)
Question: which requirements made it into the 6G RAN study document?
All verdicts below come from one moderator's summary [E8] plus the plenary's own document verdicts in the same item.
One item passed outright. Editorial corrections were accepted by the main session — "Proposal 1.A-1 was accepted by the main session" — and the correction document itself was approved at the plenary [E8].
No agreement recorded: the UE-side data-collection update. The summary carries RAN2's data-collection requirements as the agreed baseline and proposes updating TR 38.914 plus an information liaison statement to SA, RAN2, RAN3 and SA2 (Proposal 3) — but no agreement on that update is in the record. In the plenary discussion MediaTek, seeing no support, suggested deprioritizing UE-side data collection [E9], and the companion change request was withdrawn [E26].
Discarded, explicitly, was Lenovo's text proposal for coverage (Proposal 1.E-1): a full draft spelling out the 143 dB basic and 153 dB extended coupling-loss targets together with a relaxation table — including a BLER-target relaxation from 1% to 10% and longer cell-search times [E12]. "Proposal 1.E-1 was discarded by the main session" [E12]. Note what that does and does not mean: the draft text fell; for the targets themselves, no outcome is recorded — they reappear in an undecided way-forward proposing that RAN1 identify which signals need relaxed targets for 153 dB, with the chair calling for further offline discussion [E7]. Lenovo thus appears three times on the same 153 dB target: the discarded draft [E12], the undecided way-forward, and an earlier change request that was not pursued [E7]. Also discarded: vendor-specific phone data collection — "Proposal 1.B-1 was discarded by the main session" [E10] — and Jio's AI framework texts (Proposals 1.C-1 and 1.C-2), after Ericsson, Samsung and CATT spoke against a unified AI/ML framework in the plenary discussion [E22].
Without a recorded outcome: defining 6G device types — the conclusions section stands empty, discussion suspended pending the device-type outcome in item 8.2.1.2 [E11] — and MediaTek's proposal to anchor device discussions in minimum radio performance for handhelds and CPEs [E5]. The device-aspects change request itself was not pursued [E27].
Unknown: the record gives positions (who opposed what) but no technical reasons for the discards, so this article does not speculate why the texts fell.
What this article does not cover
- The rest of the RAN#113 agenda beyond these five items (the TDoc register holds 691 documents). In particular, other work items the plenary may have approved, revised, or closed are outside this text.
- One withdrawn discussion paper inside the covered items (RP-261930, Tejas Networks/IIT Madras, item 8.2.1.1): discussion-only, no tracked proposal — listed here so the exclusion is visible.
- Noted-only proposals in the covered items beyond the tracked rows (dozens of discussion papers): no outcome is recorded for them, and this article makes no claim about them either way.
- Technical reasons behind the discarded texts (not in the record).
- Plenary vote shares (not in the record; co-signatory lists are not votes).
- CT plenary links and SA2 architecture dependencies beyond the recorded handover (E23).
Appendix: evidence rows
Evidence base: eleven verdicts in five agenda items (8.2.1.1, 8.2.1.2, 8.3.1, 9.3.4.1, 9.3.4.6) from RAN#113, Madrid, 14–17 September 2026 — a verdict is a distinct quoted verdict, so E3 and E21 count twice (two agreed texts, one endorsed document) while E13–E17 count once (one approval, five rows) — nine open items, two withdrawals and one CR not pursued, plus the SA#113 receipt of the reply liaison statement (E23). Every outcome claim links to a numbered row below; nothing here claims anything about the rest of the 691-document register.
Outcome rows (E1–E27) come from the plenary report, the final moderator summaries, and the cited documents; support rows (S1–S4) and technical rows (T1–T2) come from the cited documents. RP-262213 was revised into RP-262258; RP-262191 into RP-262235; RP-262000 into RP-262183; quotes below are from the final revision unless noted. Rows E8–E12 and E22 share one moderator's summary (Source: CMCC); E1, E2 and E4–E6 are the filed proposals behind S1–S4. The Quote column carries verbatim quotes only; editorial context lives in Note.
| ID | TDoc | Item | Status | Source | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | RP-261665 | 8.2.1.1 | open | silent | no outcome recorded; proposal only; see S1 |
| E2 | RP-261840 | 8.2.1.1 | open | silent | no outcome recorded; proposal only; see S4 |
| E3 | RP-262262 | 8.2.1.1 | decided | endorsed slide 3 | Source: RAN2 Chair (InterDigital); same endorsed document as E21 |
| "RAN plenary to task RAN2 to further study 6G-6G spectrum aggregation for non-collocated deployment scenarios with non-ideal backhaul assuming backhaul latency up to 10 ms, with the goal of enabling a multi-vendor interoperable solution" | |||||
| E4 | RP-261880 | 8.2.1.1 | open | silent | no outcome recorded; proposal only; see S2 |
| E5 | RP-261989 | 8.2.1.2 | open | silent | no outcome recorded; proposal only; Source: MediaTek Inc. |
| E6 | RP-262155 | 8.2.1.1 | open | silent | no outcome recorded; proposal only; filed text in S3; resembles the endorsed simplified variant in architecture, no adoption link recorded |
| E7 | RP-262247 | 8.3.1 | open | plenary-report | Source: Lenovo; earlier Lenovo CR RP-262201 on the same topic was not pursued |
| "It is proposed that RAN WG1 identify and capture in TR 38.760-1, which channel/signal would require a relaxed requirement in order to reach the target MaxCL of 153dB, and the relevant details of possible relaxation." + "RAN Chair: further offline discussion needed" | |||||
| E8 | RP-262191→RP-262235 | 8.3.1 | decided | final-summary + plenary | Source: CMCC |
| "Proposal 1.A-1 was accepted by the main session." + "RP-261871 CR on editorials for TR 38.914 … The document was approved." | |||||
| E9 | RP-261931 + RP-262191→RP-262235 | 8.3.1 | open | plenary-report | sic; Proposal 3's TR update + LS: no agreement recorded; companion CR withdrawn, see E26 |
| "Mediatek: as there seem to be no support for UE side data collection, suggests to deprioritize UE side data collection" | |||||
| E10 | RP-262191→RP-262235 | 8.3.1 | dropped | final-summary | Source: CMCC |
| "Proposal 1.B-1 was discarded by the main session." | |||||
| E11 | RP-262191→RP-262235 | 8.3.1 | open | final-summary | section empty — no outcome recorded; discussion suspended pending AI 8.2.1.2; Source: CMCC |
| "1.D.2 Device type: conclusions" | |||||
| E12 | RP-262191→RP-262235 | 8.3.1 | dropped | final-summary | Lenovo's text: 143/153 dB targets + relaxation table, incl. BLER 1%→10%; Source: CMCC |
| "Proposal 1.E-1 was discarded by the main session." | |||||
| E13 | RP-262238→RP-262261 | 9.3.4.6 | decided | approved-wid | Source: MediaTek Inc.; one shared approval act across E13–E17 (chain RP-261987→RP-262251→RP-262260→RP-262261; last approved WID RP-261563) |
| "RP-262261 Revised WID … / The document was approved." + Scope: "Support for PC1.5 2Tx single-layer UL MIMO." + "Support for PC1.5 2Tx UL TxD." + "NOTE: PC1.5 2Tx dual-layer UL MIMO will not be considered." | |||||
| E14 | RP-262238→RP-262261 | 9.3.4.6 | decided | approved-wid | Source: MediaTek Inc.; one shared approval act across E13–E17 |
| "RP-262261 Revised WID … / The document was approved." + Scope: "DL intra-band intra-SAN CA for NTN Core Part" + "Specify generic RF and RRM requirements for NR NTN CA for UE/VSAT and SAN core requirements with 2DL component carrier and 1UL for FR1-NTN bands and for FR2-NTN bands [RAN4]" + "Target Power class is the existing supporting power classes, PC3, PC2, PC1.5 and PC1." | |||||
| E15 | RP-262238→RP-262261 | 9.3.4.6 | decided | approved-wid | Source: MediaTek Inc.; one shared approval act across E13–E17 |
| "RP-262261 Revised WID … / The document was approved." + Scope: "Specify the new Mobile VSAT device type capability and corresponding configurations [RAN2]" + "Specify the relevant capability and corresponding configurations [RAN2]" | |||||
| E16 | RP-262238→RP-262261 | 9.3.4.6 | decided | approved-wid | Source: MediaTek Inc.; one shared approval act across E13–E17 |
| "RP-262261 Revised WID … / The document was approved." + Scope: "Update the existing specification to avoid collision handling for NTN HD-FDD VSAT with FR2 numerology [RAN1]" + 38.213: "Update collision handling of HD-FDD VSAT with FR2 numerology" | |||||
| E17 | RP-262238→RP-262261 | 9.3.4.6 | decided | approved-wid | Source: MediaTek Inc.; one shared approval act across E13–E17 |
| "RP-262261 Revised WID … / The document was approved." + Scope: "New specifications: Internal TR 38.764 Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN) Downlink (DL) Carrier Aggregation (CA) and Half-Duplex Frequency Division Duplexing (HD-FDD)" + "Impacted existing TS/TR: 38.101-5, 38.133, 38.108, 38.307, 38.863, 38.213, 38.300, 38.331, 38.306" | |||||
| E18 | RP-262172/RP-262213 | 9.3.4.1 | decided | plenary-report | Source: Moderator (Huawei); the RP-262172 proposal and Nokia-comment position behind the Rel-20 "no" |
| "conclusion: proposed conclusion in 3.1 is endorsed" + RP-262172: "Proposal: RAN shall not create a normative work for Tx EVM relaxation with DPoD for 5G-A" + RP-262258 Nokia comment: "RANP should avoid any normative works for Tx EVM relaxation with DPoD in 5GA." | |||||
| E19 | RP-262213→RP-262258 | 9.3.4.1 | decided | final-summary | Source: Moderator (Huawei); identical text in RP-262213 and RP-262258 |
| "As one potential objective under the Rel-21 6G WI (assuming 6G study is completed and shows gain)." + "assuming it is not based on 1024QAM and not relying on some specific aspect of the 6G air interface" | |||||
| E20 | RP-262213→RP-262258 | 9.3.4.1 | open | silent | no outcome recorded; study-direction text survives only in the earlier RP-262213 revision |
| E21 | RP-262262 | 8.2.1.1 | decided | endorsed slides | Source: RAN2 Chair (InterDigital); endorsed way-forward "On MRSS, Migration, and Spectrum Aggregation"; same document as E3; RAN#114 meets in December 2026 — report shorthand "Dec.26" ("will approve … in RAN #114 in Dec.26"; "decide in Sep.26 or in Dec.26") |
| "Postpone the decision for additional migration option to RAN#114." + "Discuss and decide on split bearer in RAN#114 for option 1/2." + "Efficient sharing of at least NR and 6GR DL control channel resources shall be supported in 6GR." + "For Option 3 the following simplified variant may be considered for further discussion" + "No RAN impact is expected or specified." + "two single registrations (UE registered to 5GC (NR) and 6GC (6GR)) … 5G voice (VoNR) on the 5G leg, 6G data on the 6G leg … Network-controlled mobility (connected)" + "Reply to SA2 to confirm the feasibility … no later than RAN#114" + "SA will make final decision on this option" | |||||
| E22 | RP-262191→RP-262235 | 8.3.1 | dropped | final-summary + plenary | Jio's AI framework texts; plenary: Ericsson "does not support '3GPP RAN should support a unified AI/ML framework'", Samsung agrees, CATT "no need for unified"; MCC flagged the input as wrong Tdoc type against a CR-controlled TR; Source: CMCC |
| "Proposal 1.C-1 and proposal 1.C-2 were discarded by the main session." | |||||
| E23 | RP-262264 | 8.2.1.1 | decided | plenary-report + SA#113 report | Source: RAN2 Chair (InterDigital); SA#113 met 15–18 September 2026 in Madrid (report header v0.0.3) |
| "RP-262264 Reply to S2-2609100 = RP-261614 on migration and interworking status in SA2 6G study (to: SA2, SA …) … The document was approved." + LS content as received: "TSG RAN kindly asks SA WG2 to determine the feasibility and inform TSG RAN of the above scenario by RAN#114 and expects TSG SA to take the final decision no later than SA#114." + SA#113: "SA WG2 were requested to provide feedback on the simplified option 3 for migration in the 6G Study work." + "TSG SA will have the final decision on this and inform TSG RAN of the result." + "SP-261005 (LS IN) … (Source: TSG RAN (RP-262264)) … This LS was postponed." | |||||
| E24 | RP-261970 | 9.3.4.1 | decided | plenary-report | Source: Huawei, HiSilicon; one-step approval |
| "TR 38.766 v1.0.0 Co-existence study on HPUE with up to 32dBm … RAN4 TR 38.766 is provided for 1-step approval … The document was approved." | |||||
| E25 | RP-261924 | 9.3.4.1 | withdrawn | plenary-report | Source: Qualcomm |
| "RP-261924 DPoD Handling in 5G-Advanced … The document was withdrawn." | |||||
| E26 | RP-262000→RP-262183 | 8.3.1 | withdrawn | plenary-report | Source: MediaTek Inc. |
| "RP-262183 CR 38.914: Requirements for UE-side Data Collection … Replaces RP-262000 … The document was withdrawn." | |||||
| E27 | RP-261990 | 8.3.1 | not-pursued | plenary-report | Source: MediaTek Inc. |
| "RP-261990 CR 38.914 Device Aspects … The document was not pursued." | |||||
| S1 | RP-261665 | 8.2.1.1 | support | document | Source: Samsung, Bell Mobility, Charter Communications, LG Uplus, NTT DOCOMO, Qualcomm, Rakuten, SK Telecom, Softbank, Telus, Verizon (one coalition with S2) |
| "Proposal: Select Option 1 “6G RAN node as anchor, aggregated with NR cells” as the additional migration option other than MRSS." + "6G-5G DC with 6G as the anchor" | |||||
| S2 | RP-261880 | 8.2.1.1 | support | document | Source: NTT DOCOMO, Qualcomm, Samsung, SK Telecom, Verizon, BT, Deutsche Telekom, Turkcell, Charter Communications, inc., Bell mobility, Telus, Softbank, Rakuten, LG Uplus (same 11 as S1 plus BT, Deutsche Telekom, Turkcell); Option 1 defined in the filing's RAN#111 recap; withdrawal said in plenary discussion |
| "Option1: 6G RAN node as anchor, aggregated with NR cells." + "Only Option 1 is supported as an additional migration option." + Deutsche Telekom: "we withdraw the support for this Tdoc" | |||||
| S3 | RP-262155 | 8.2.1.1 | support | document | Source: Boost Mobile Network, AST SpaceMobile, Skylo, EchoStar |
| "Option 3 – Dual Stack" + "Aggregation is not in the RAN, 5G RAN connected to a CN and 6G RAN connected to a CN" + "Proposal 1: Given that Option 3 has little impact on RAN but impacts Core and UE, it is proposed that RAN request SA to evaluate Option 3 for 4G-to-6G, 4G-to-6G NTN, 5G-to-6G NTN, and 5G-to-6G migrations." | |||||
| S4 | RP-261840 | 8.2.1.1 | support | document | Source: Nokia (sole signatory) |
| "Proposal 1: Additional migration mechanisms that are based on Dual Stack and/or dual registration are out of the scope of 6G study." + "Proposal 2: Additional 5G-6G migration mechanisms that are based on 5G-anchored Dual Connectivity are out of the scope of 6G study." + "Proposal 3: Additional 5G-6G migration mechanisms that are based on 6G-anchored Dual Connectivity are out of the scope of 6G study." + "required functionalities to support the non-collocated FR1-FR2 spectrum aggregation in 6G should be based on a more light-weight framework than 5G DC (no SRB3, no multiple DC)." + "Proposal 5: Guide RAN2 to continue the study on identifying CP/UP enablers for FR1-FR2 Spectrum Aggregation in 6G, with the aim of converging on a single Spectrum Aggregation solution." | |||||
| T1 | RP-262172 + RP-262258 + RP-262100 | 9.3.4.1 | fact | document | Source: Moderator (Huawei); assessment paper: Nokia, Ericsson, ZTE, Sanechips, Qualcomm, Vodafone, Murata, Motorola Mobility, T-Mobile USA. Mapping: range ← RAN4 agreed WF R4-2612298 via RP-262258 background; cap + SNR-loss + DMRS notes ← RP-262172 annex; DPoD role ← CATT RP-262100 as tabled in RP-262258; open-issue quotes ← RP-262258 (background: SLS + testability; Nokia comment: PA/DPoD models; Ericsson comment: RAN1/RAN2 signalling) |
| "gain with a range of [-0.8 dB ~ 4.2 dB] based on LLS for non-AI DPoD" + "With 6%EVM target, the net gain is upper bound by <3dB" + "Considering the SNR loss, gains are most likely <2dB" + "Marginal/negative net gain compared TDMed DMRS counterpart" + "relaxed UE Tx EVM can be sufficiently compensated by the BS DPoD receiver" + "The study based on SLS is limited" + "no baseline DPoD algorithm and PA-nonlinearity model being agreed" + "may not be entirely wise to exclude RAN1 and RAN2" + "It is noted that testability was not concluded in RAN4." | |||||
| T2 | RP-262258 | 9.3.4.1 | fact | document | Source: Moderator (Huawei); speakers: Verizon, Huawei |
| Verizon: "From an operator's perspective, we like to understand the E2E gain and have ways to ensure the gain before we want to invest in the network feature" + "a way to verify that the UE is creating more power boosting than the BS loss under degraded EVM"; Huawei: "drive the PA to saturation region with increased power" + "Hence, we support the proposed objectives for the normative work." | |||||