{ "releaseId": "terra-geobenchx-v1", "taskId": "822439", "question": "Create a heatmap of earthquake occurrences in Pacific US states.", "submittedPrompt": "Create a heatmap of earthquake occurrences in Pacific US states.\n\nTask conventions: Use supplied states with NAME in [\"Alaska\", \"Hawaii\", \"California\", \"Oregon\", \"Washington\"]. Use original points within or touching the selected original state boundaries, as in the released reference. Use one unit weight per event to show occurrences. The source includes genuine negative magnitudes; the archived reference's magnitude-weighted heatmap is not a nonnegative occurrence density. This protocol explicitly uses counts instead, without dropping small earthquakes or clamping their magnitudes. The event timestamps in the supplied frozen file govern; do not query current events. Use original point records within or touching the original selected state polygons. Unknown country indicators, nonpositive ratio denominators, missing geometry and missing/nonfinite weights are unknown, not zero. Known zero weights remain valid. Exclude valid points outside the specified geography. Include only eligible points with a finite nonnegative weight in the contributing artifact; report other potentially eligible points as unknown. Use this explicit geographic heatmap convention: grid={\"bounds\": [-18000000, -7325000, 18000000, 7325000], \"crs\": \"EPSG:6933\", \"resolutionX\": 25000, \"resolutionY\": 25000}, radius 150000 metres = three Gaussian standard deviations. First bin each point into its containing grid cell and sum its weight. Smooth using a normalized separable Gaussian, numerical support four standard deviations, constant-zero exterior; do not renormalize edges. Use both grid resolutions for the two axes; keep original grid alignment. This is a declared metric raster adaptation to the original interactive screen-pixel heatmap, not an equivalent zoom-dependent rendering. Output unit: events per grid cell. Zero cells are valid; this is not density per square kilometre. Do not rescale the values for presentation.\n\n\n\nAdd the heatmap raster to the map and retain an inspectable selected-point artifact with original geometry and benchmark_row_id. End with one fenced JSON object: {count: contributing point records, unknown_count: records with unknown eligibility or weight, unlocated_count: original points lacking valid geometry, coverage_note: string, selection: {collectionId,itemId,assetKey}, density: {collectionId,itemId,assetKey}, map_layer_id: heatmap_layer_id}. Explain the data edition, numerical weights, grid, smoothing and coverage limitations. The source-point artifact is not itself the requested heatmap.\n\nDelivery format: provide the answer object with all fields specified above as final_response on assess_result, alongside the inspected final artifact_refs. This replaces the JSON-code-block formatting requirement above. Blue attaches your explicit selection to the accepted final answer. Finish with a concise ordinary-language answer agreeing with that selected result; do not duplicate the JSON in chat.\n\nSupplied immutable inputs:\n[\n {\n \"name\": \"Earthquake points, frozen 30-day snapshot\",\n \"edition\": \"Archive labelled Feb142025; observed event timestamps 2025-01-16 through 2025-02-15 UTC\",\n \"units\": {},\n \"collectionId\": \"blue-generated--[resource id withheld]\",\n \"itemId\": \"[resource id withheld]\",\n \"assetKey\": \"data\"\n },\n {\n \"name\": \"US state boundaries\",\n \"edition\": \"Census TIGER/Line 2024\",\n \"units\": {},\n \"collectionId\": \"blue-generated--[resource id withheld]\",\n \"itemId\": \"[resource id withheld]\",\n \"assetKey\": \"data\"\n }\n]", "finalAnswer": "Done — the heatmap is on the map, and the contributing earthquake points are saved for inspection.\n\nSource editions: USGS Earthquake Hazards Program frozen 30-day snapshot labelled Feb142025, with event timestamps 2025-01-16 through 2025-02-15 UTC; US Census Bureau Census TIGER/Line 2024 state boundaries. I counted one event per eligible point, kept negative magnitudes in the source points without weighting, and selected 6,124 contributing records. I found 0 unknown records and 0 unlocated records.\n\nThe raster uses the exact EPSG:6933 grid at 25 km by 25 km with a 150 km Gaussian radius, and values are events per grid cell. Limit: this is a smoothed archived occurrence surface, not current activity, not magnitude-weighted, not per square kilometre, and edge cells can be lower near the declared grid boundary. Next: review the heatmap on the map or inspect the saved point artifact for the exact events behind it.\n\n### Limitations\n\n- Uses the supplied frozen 30-day earthquake snapshot only; it does not represent current seismic activity after 2025-02-15 UTC.\n- The raster reports smoothed events per 25 km grid cell on the declared EPSG:6933 grid, not events per square kilometre.\n- Gaussian smoothing uses constant-zero values beyond the declared grid and does not renormalize edges, so values can be lower near the grid boundary.\n- This uses the supplied archived 30-day snapshot only; it does not represent seismic activity after 2025-02-15 UTC.\n- The raster is a smoothed occurrence surface in events per 25 km grid cell, not a magnitude-weighted surface and not events per square kilometre.\n- Gaussian smoothing uses constant-zero values beyond the declared grid and does not renormalize edges, so values can be lower near the declared grid boundary.", "checks": { "expectedCount": 6124, "actualCount": 6124, "expectedMetrics": null, "actualMetrics": null, "computationCorrect": true, "answerFulfilled": true, "adjudication": null, "qualification": null, "reasons": [] }, "activity": [ { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:12.824691Z", "title": "Progress update", "detail": "I’ll inspect the supplied earthquake snapshot and state boundaries first, then run a small private test of the selection and heatmap method before I save and run the full result." }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:22.654142Z", "title": "get_collection", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:22.972499Z", "title": "get_analysis", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:23.055175Z", "title": "get_collection", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:33.954569Z", "title": "Progress update", "detail": "I found the Blue analysis tools. Next I’m checking the saved context and the two supplied datasets so I can match the frozen file, the state filter, and the point fields exactly before I build the heatmap." }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:43.383174Z", "title": "inspect_artifact", "detail": "Recorded tool call · failed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:43.395441Z", "title": "inspect_artifact", "detail": "Recorded tool call · failed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:43.492260Z", "title": "inspect_artifact", "detail": "Recorded tool call · failed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:44.995334Z", "title": "inspect_artifact", "detail": "Recorded tool call · failed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:48.810589Z", "title": "Progress update", "detail": "I confirmed both supplied inputs are the fixed benchmark snapshots. Now I’m checking their actual fields and sample records, then I’ll choose processors that can preserve `benchmark_row_id`, select only the five named states, and build the count-based smoothed raster on the declared metric grid." }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:57.830856Z", "title": "Progress update", "detail": "The direct artifact inspection failed because these are source inputs, not workflow outputs. I’m switching to the supported path: a small private source trial plus processor discovery, so I can inspect the actual fields and the available raster/vector steps without guessing names or parameters." }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:57.898319Z", "title": "get_tool_help", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:57.909931Z", "title": "list_processors", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:58.978402Z", "title": "get_tool_help", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:59.059367Z", "title": "list_processors", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:58:59.291155Z", "title": "list_processors", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:59:01.208294Z", "title": "list_processors", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:59:17.511281Z", "title": "describe_processors", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:59:17.979400Z", "title": "get_tool_help", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:59:18.016932Z", "title": "describe_processors", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:59:19.375403Z", "title": "get_tool_help", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:59:35.843656Z", "title": "get_collection", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T07:59:36.434416Z", "title": "get_collection", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:00:03.449256Z", "title": "update_analysis_brief", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:00:37.243859Z", "title": "Progress update", "detail": "I have a workable method: filter the five state polygons, select earthquake points with an `intersects` join so boundary-touching points count, keep one match per point to avoid duplicates on shared borders, then run `point-density` with the exact grid and radius you specified. I’m testing that full computation privately now so I can verify the selected records, the density summary, and the preserved `benchmark_row_id` before I publish the result." }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:00:42.787745Z", "title": "run_trial", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:02:46.893078Z", "title": "Progress update", "detail": "The private test worked well enough to promote the method: five states selected, 6,124 contributing points found once each, and the density raster uses the exact EPSG:6933 grid and 150 km radius you specified. I’m checking one remaining detail now: making sure the retained point artifact keeps the original `benchmark_row_id` cleanly enough for inspection before I save and run the final workflow." }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:02:46.948821Z", "title": "get_tool_help", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:02:46.961806Z", "title": "get_tool_help", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:02:46.976239Z", "title": "get_tool_help", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:02:48.342933Z", "title": "describe_processors", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:02:48.404207Z", "title": "describe_processors", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:03:09.057705Z", "title": "Progress update", "detail": "The first test answered most of the method question, but not the last detail I need for delivery: the point selection kept the right 6,124 records, yet the point ID field came through as `benchmark_row_id_target` because the state file also had a `benchmark_row_id`. I’m recording that and testing a cleaned-up selection path that should keep the earthquake point ID as plain `benchmark_row_id`." }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:03:10.753808Z", "title": "assess_trial", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:03:22.344314Z", "title": "run_trial", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:06:07.010828Z", "title": "assess_trial", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:06:15.156018Z", "title": "Progress update", "detail": "I’ve now confirmed the cleaned-up method: it keeps the same 6,124 contributing events and preserves `benchmark_row_id` exactly. I’m saving that tested computation as the production workflow and resolving the earlier field-conflict finding before I run the final outputs." }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:06:15.218560Z", "title": "get_tool_help", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:06:15.252432Z", "title": "get_tool_help", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:06:15.590712Z", "title": "get_analysis", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:06:27.626172Z", "title": "get_tool_help", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:06:27.675605Z", "title": "get_tool_help", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:06:28.187217Z", "title": "get_tool_help", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:07:17.690257Z", "title": "propose_workflow", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:07:26.783485Z", "title": "assess_plan", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:07:31.646837Z", "title": "Progress update", "detail": "The saved workflow is valid and runnable. One bookkeeping step remains: I’m resolving the earlier trial finding against this exact saved proposal so Blue can treat the plan as supported, then I’ll execute it and inspect the final artifacts." }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:07:42.422257Z", "title": "execute_workflow", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:08:50.657468Z", "title": "Progress update", "detail": "The production run completed in the background. I’m inspecting the exact delivered point artifact and heatmap raster now, then I’ll add the raster layer to the map and record the final answer object with the verified artifact IDs." }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:08:50.702058Z", "title": "inspect_workflow_results", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:08:50.715495Z", "title": "list_map_layers", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:09:21.282142Z", "title": "Progress update", "detail": "I have the final output IDs and the map layer ID. I’m doing the last bounded checks now: one inspection of the contributing-point artifact to confirm `benchmark_row_id`, and one inspection of the raster to confirm the delivered grid values and map-ready heatmap." }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:09:21.365295Z", "title": "inspect_artifact", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:09:21.393354Z", "title": "inspect_artifact", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:09:52.216737Z", "title": "Progress update", "detail": "I have enough from the run receipts to identify the final artifacts. I’m fetching the finished inspection details now so I can verify the point field, the raster preview, and then file the final assessed result cleanly." }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:09:52.261806Z", "title": "inspect_artifact", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:09:52.379085Z", "title": "inspect_artifact", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:10:43.443663Z", "title": "Progress update", "detail": "I’ve verified the delivered point records, the delivered raster, and the live map layer. I’m refreshing the saved brief so it reflects the completed method and its real remaining limits, then I’ll record the final result object." }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:10:52.071533Z", "title": "update_analysis_brief", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:11:25.239952Z", "title": "Progress update", "detail": "I’ve verified everything needed for the final answer object: 6,124 contributing points, 0 unknown records, 0 unlocated records, the inspected selected-point artifact, the inspected heatmap raster, and the live map layer. I’m recording that final result now." }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:11:32.393465Z", "title": "assess_result", "detail": "Recorded tool call · completed" } ], "workflow": [ { "title": "Contributing earthquake points", "description": "Recorded output · succeeded" }, { "title": "Pacific earthquake occurrence heatmap", "description": "Recorded output · succeeded" }, { "title": "Pacific earthquake heatmap", "description": "Recorded point-density · succeeded" }, { "title": "Earthquake snapshot", "description": "Recorded source · succeeded" }, { "title": "Merged Pacific state area", "description": "Recorded vector-dissolve · succeeded" }, { "title": "Selected Pacific states", "description": "Recorded vector-filter · succeeded" }, { "title": "Earthquakes in merged Pacific area", "description": "Recorded vector-spatial-join · succeeded" }, { "title": "State boundaries", "description": "Recorded source · succeeded" }, { "title": "Pacific earthquake heatmap", "description": "Recorded point-density · succeeded" }, { "title": "Earthquake snapshot", "description": "Recorded source · succeeded" }, { "title": "Merged Pacific state area", "description": "Recorded vector-dissolve · succeeded" }, { "title": "Selected Pacific states", "description": "Recorded vector-filter · succeeded" }, { "title": "Earthquakes in merged Pacific area", "description": "Recorded vector-spatial-join · succeeded" }, { "title": "State boundaries", "description": "Recorded source · succeeded" }, { "title": "Merged Pacific state area", "description": "Recorded output · succeeded" }, { "title": "Earthquakes in merged Pacific area", "description": "Recorded output · succeeded" }, { "title": "Pacific earthquake heatmap", "description": "Recorded output · succeeded" }, { "title": "Pacific earthquake heatmap", "description": "Recorded point-density · succeeded" }, { "title": "Earthquake snapshot", "description": "Recorded source · succeeded" }, { "title": "Selected Pacific states", "description": "Recorded vector-filter · succeeded" }, { "title": "Earthquakes in selected states", "description": "Recorded vector-spatial-join · succeeded" }, { "title": "State boundaries", "description": "Recorded source · succeeded" }, { "title": "Selected Pacific states", "description": "Recorded output · succeeded" }, { "title": "Earthquakes in selected states", "description": "Recorded output · succeeded" }, { "title": "Pacific earthquake heatmap", "description": "Recorded output · succeeded" }, { "title": "Pacific earthquake heatmap", "description": "Recorded output · succeeded" } ], "previews": [], "activityDisclosure": "Recorded observable actions only, not private reasoning. Raw payloads, geometry, private links and credentials are omitted; full evidence is retained privately. Activity/workflow lists bounded at 500 entries.", "artifacts": [ { "sha256": "d65a70744c33156a86486daa0121936bb3cbaa710a6cee0ebeb1c5d343efaed0", "bytes": 975661, "finishedAt": "2026-10-07T08:01:02.745383+00:00" }, { "sha256": "69ff970f163d029daf0bc092d94751fa2aaf86f06d7e994e62fa95ca196f702c", "bytes": 15033689, "finishedAt": "2026-10-07T08:01:02.745383+00:00" }, { "sha256": "6bcbc08496891a18bdd406bce5002dbc8a36fa908a68f1adb851063a4bf9a63a", "bytes": 854649, "finishedAt": "2026-10-07T08:01:20.986803+00:00" }, { "sha256": "21fad05fff95a6ec87410e9fc4dd5e2923a5fe9c1957c2f38f9bbb7e825cbe11", "bytes": 811696, "finishedAt": "2026-10-07T08:01:35.446012+00:00" }, { "sha256": "2dee7c7eb82f3414e9d318ce6e1d063897bcfef3fc34c095d1f22491de3908a8", "bytes": 64356, "finishedAt": "2026-10-07T08:01:48.293636+00:00" }, { "sha256": "6bcbc08496891a18bdd406bce5002dbc8a36fa908a68f1adb851063a4bf9a63a", "bytes": 854649, "finishedAt": "2026-10-07T08:04:05.896707+00:00" }, { "sha256": "bed62193883322964eb5c3fc211211a40035b3b1a47d3f9511b9ddb1844a50fd", "bytes": 691193, "finishedAt": "2026-10-07T08:04:18.581921+00:00" }, { "sha256": "2dee7c7eb82f3414e9d318ce6e1d063897bcfef3fc34c095d1f22491de3908a8", "bytes": 64356, "finishedAt": "2026-10-07T08:04:46.202829+00:00" }, { "sha256": "c0c30277fc37cedc7465a26429cdf4c70f38caf8cc37a9ee3a77462976922964", "bytes": 778408, "finishedAt": "2026-10-07T08:04:34.535203+00:00" }, { "sha256": "6bcbc08496891a18bdd406bce5002dbc8a36fa908a68f1adb851063a4bf9a63a", "bytes": 854649, "finishedAt": "2026-10-07T08:08:07.379989+00:00" }, { "sha256": "c0c30277fc37cedc7465a26429cdf4c70f38caf8cc37a9ee3a77462976922964", "bytes": 778408, "finishedAt": "2026-10-07T08:08:22.407335+00:00" }, { "sha256": "bed62193883322964eb5c3fc211211a40035b3b1a47d3f9511b9ddb1844a50fd", "bytes": 691193, "finishedAt": "2026-10-07T08:08:14.295607+00:00" }, { "sha256": "2dee7c7eb82f3414e9d318ce6e1d063897bcfef3fc34c095d1f22491de3908a8", "bytes": 64356, "finishedAt": "2026-10-07T08:08:33.575873+00:00" } ], "snapshotSha256": "c0020b58f4476dfad4dfa32d4ce51d9afa6850cfd0a4fcf731e877c3b0cb4f12", "investigations": [ { "at": "2026-10-07T08:00:42.787745Z", "tool": "run_trial", "status": "completed", "verdict": null, "findings": null, "limitations": null, "next_action": null, "question": "Does the full-scope workflow correctly select earthquake points in or touching the five named state polygons, preserve benchmark_row_id on the contributing points, avoid duplicate boundary matches, and produce the requested count-based smoothed heatmap on the declared EPSG:6933 grid?" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:03:10.753808Z", "tool": "assess_trial", "status": "completed", "verdict": "insufficient", "findings": "The tested full-scope method correctly filtered the five named states, selected 6,124 earthquake points with one retained match per point, and produced a point-density raster on the exact EPSG:6933 grid with 25 km cells and radius 150000 m. The join also showed 9,176 input point records, 6,124 matched points, 3,052 unmatched points, and no records omitted before join, so no invalid or empty point geometry was observed in this run. However, the selected-point artifact renamed the earthquake point identifier to benchmark_row_id_target because the state polygons also carried a benchmark_row_id field, so this trial did not yet satisfy the requested inspectable artifact field naming cleanly enough for final delivery.", "limitations": [ "The selected-point artifact from this method does not retain the earthquake point ID as plain benchmark_row_id." ], "next_action": "Test a revised selection path that removes the join-side field conflict, such as dissolving the selected states before the point-in-polygon step, then confirm that the contributing-point artifact preserves original geometry and benchmark_row_id while keeping the same selected count and density method.", "question": null }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:03:22.344314Z", "tool": "run_trial", "status": "completed", "verdict": null, "findings": null, "limitations": null, "next_action": null, "question": "Does dissolving the five selected state polygons before the point-in-polygon step preserve the earthquake point benchmark_row_id field cleanly while keeping the same contributing-point selection and the same requested count-based density output?" }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:06:07.010828Z", "tool": "assess_trial", "status": "completed", "verdict": "sufficient", "findings": "Dissolving the five selected state polygons removed the join-side field conflict while preserving the same full-scope analytical result. The merged Pacific area contained one multipart geometry covering the five selected states. The contributing-point selection again returned 6,124 original earthquake points, with no records omitted before join and 3,052 located snapshot points remaining outside the selected states. The selected-point artifact now preserves the earthquake point identifier as plain benchmark_row_id with original point geometry. The density summary still reports count-based weighting with 6,124 used points, unknownWeightCount 0, outsideGridCount 0, the exact EPSG:6933 grid bounds [-18000000,-7325000,18000000,7325000], 25 km resolution on both axes, radius 150000 m, sigmaPixels [2,2], and unit 'events per grid cell'.", "limitations": [ "This remains a smoothed count surface for the supplied frozen 30-day snapshot only; it is not current seismic activity, not magnitude-weighted, not per square kilometre, and edge smoothing can lose mass near the grid boundary." ], "next_action": "Promote this tested full-scope computation into the saved workflow, execute it, inspect the final artifacts and map binding, and assess the delivered result.", "question": null }, { "at": "2026-10-07T08:11:32.393465Z", "tool": "assess_result", "status": "completed", "verdict": "sufficient", "findings": "The final result is sufficient. It uses the supplied USGS Earthquake Hazards Program frozen 30-day snapshot labelled Feb142025 with observed event timestamps 2025-01-16 through 2025-02-15 UTC and the supplied Census TIGER/Line 2024 state boundaries. The workflow selected 6,124 original earthquake point records whose original geometries intersect the merged Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, and Washington area, preserved benchmark_row_id on the contributing-point artifact, and excluded 3,052 other located snapshot points outside the selected geography. The delivered heatmap uses count weighting only: no weight field was provided, so each contributing event counted once, while negative magnitudes remained present in the source points and were not clamped or used as weights. The delivered raster matches the requested EPSG:6933 grid, 25 km cell size on both axes, 150 km Gaussian radius, and 'events per grid cell' unit. Its inspected statistics are min 0.0, max 60.6290168762207, mean 0.007257299964943157, validPixelCount 843840, unknownWeightCount 0, and outsideGridCount 0. The heatmap raster is already added to the map as layer [resource id withheld].", "limitations": [ "This uses the supplied archived 30-day snapshot only; it does not represent seismic activity after 2025-02-15 UTC.", "The raster is a smoothed occurrence surface in events per 25 km grid cell, not a magnitude-weighted surface and not events per square kilometre.", "Gaussian smoothing uses constant-zero values beyond the declared grid and does not renormalize edges, so values can be lower near the declared grid boundary." ], "next_action": "Review the heatmap layer on the map and inspect the contributing-point artifact if you want the exact event records behind any area of interest.", "question": null } ] }