Hello, I’m trying to change the business model of my app to in-app subscriptions. My goal is to ensure that previous users who paid for the app have access to all premium content seamlessly, without even noticing any changes. I’ve tried using RevenueCat for this, but I’m not entirely sure it’s working as expected. I would like to use RevenueCat to manage subscriptions, so I’m attempting a hybrid model. On the first launch of the updated app, the plan is to validate the app receipts, extract the originalAppVersion, and store it in a variable. If the original version is lower than the latest paid version, the isPremium variable is set to true, and this status propagates throughout the app. For users with versions equal to or higher than the latest paid version, RevenueCat will handle the subscription status—checking if a subscription is active and determining whether to display the paywall for premium features. In a sandbox environment, it seems to work fine, but I’ve often encountered situations where the receipt doesn’t exist. I haven’t found a way to test this behavior properly in production. For example, I uploaded the app to TestFlight, but it doesn’t validate the actual transaction for a previously purchased version of the app. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems TestFlight doesn’t confirm whether I installed or purchased a paid version of the app. I need to be 100% sure that users who previously paid for the app won’t face any issues with this migration. Is there any method to verify this behavior in a production-like scenario that I might not be aware of? I’m sharing the code here to see if you can confirm that it will work as intended or suggest any necessary adjustments. func fetchAppReceipt(completion: @escaping (Bool) -> Void) { // Check if the receipt URL exists guard let receiptURL = Bundle.main.appStoreReceiptURL else { print("Receipt URL not found.") requestReceiptRefresh(completion: completion) return } // Check if the receipt file exists at the given path if !FileManager.default.fileExists(atPath: receiptURL.path) { print("The receipt does not exist at the specified location. Attempting to fetch a new receipt...") requestReceiptRefresh(completion: completion) return } do { // Read the receipt data from the file let receiptData = try Data(contentsOf: receiptURL) let receiptString = receiptData.base64EncodedString() print("Receipt found and encoded in base64: \(receiptString.prefix(50))...") completion(true) } catch { // Handle errors while reading the receipt print("Error reading the receipt: \(error.localizedDescription). Attempting to fetch a new receipt...") requestReceiptRefresh(completion: completion) } } func validateAppReceipt(completion: @escaping (Bool) -> Void) { print("Starting receipt validation...") guard let receiptURL = Bundle.main.appStoreReceiptURL else { print("Receipt not found on the device.") requestReceiptRefresh(completion: completion) completion(false) return } print("Receipt found at URL: \(receiptURL.absoluteString)") do { let receiptData = try Data(contentsOf: receiptURL, options: .alwaysMapped) print(receiptData) let receiptString = receiptData.base64EncodedString(options: []) print("Receipt encoded in base64: \(receiptString.prefix(50))...") let request = [ "receipt-data": receiptString, "password": "c8bc9070bf174a8a8df108ef6b8d2ae3" // Shared Secret ] print("Request prepared for Apple's validation server.") guard let url = URL(string: "https://buy.itunes.apple.com/verifyReceipt") else { print("Error: Invalid URL for Apple's validation server.") completion(false) return } print("Validation URL: \(url.absoluteString)") var urlRequest = URLRequest(url: url) urlRequest.httpMethod = "POST" urlRequest.httpBody = try? JSONSerialization.data(withJSONObject: request) URLSession.shared.dataTask(with: urlRequest) { data, response, error in if let error = error { print("Error sending the request: \(error.localizedDescription)") completion(false) return } guard let data = data else { print("No response received from Apple's server.") completion(false) return } print("Response received from Apple's server.") do { if let json = try JSONSerialization.jsonObject(with: data) as? [String: Any] { print("Response JSON: \(json)") // Verify original_application_version if let receipt = json["receipt"] as? [String: Any], let appVersion = receipt["original_application_version"] as? String { print("Original application version found: \(appVersion)") // Save the version in @AppStorage savedOriginalVersion = appVersion print("Original version saved in AppStorage: \(appVersion)") if let appVersionNumber = Double(appVersion), appVersionNumber < 1.62 { print("Original version is less than 1.62. User considered premium.") isFirstLaunch = true completion(true) } else { print("Original version is not less than 1.62. User is not premium.") completion(false) } } else { print("Could not find the original application version in the receipt.") completion(false) } } else { print("Error parsing the response JSON.") completion(false) } } catch { print("Error processing the JSON response: \(error.localizedDescription)") completion(false) } }.resume() } catch { print("Error reading the receipt: \(error.localizedDescription)") requestReceiptRefresh(completion: completion) completion(false) } } Some of these functions might seem redundant, but they are intended to double-check and ensure that the user is not a previous user. Is there any way to be certain that this will work when the app is downloaded from the App Store? Thanks in advance!

Issue Description When using the App Store Server API endpoint GET v2/history/{transactionId} to retrieve transaction history for a specific transaction, I'm observing unexpected changes in the appTransactionId field across related transactions in the same subscription group. Important Context: This is a "clean" auto-renewable subscription with no user intervention - the user has had continuous auto-renewals without any upgrades, downgrades, cancellations, or resubscriptions. The subscription has been renewing automatically and successfully throughout the entire period. API Call GET v2/history/1000000000000001 Response Data The API returns the following transaction history, where I notice the appTransactionId values are inconsistent across what should be a straightforward auto-renewal sequence: Note: The data below has been sanitized for privacy protection (IDs, bundle identifiers, etc. have been replaced with example values), but the logical relationships, date sequences, and the core issue remain identical to the original data. Array ( [0] => Array ( [transactionId] => 1000000000000001 [originalTransactionId] => 1000000000000001 [webOrderLineItemId] => 1000000000000001 [bundleId] => com.example.myapp [productId] => MonthlySubscription [subscriptionGroupIdentifier] => 20000000 [purchaseDate] => 1743784032000 [originalPurchaseDate] => 1743784034000 [expiresDate] => 1746376032000 [quantity] => 1 [type] => Auto-Renewable Subscription [inAppOwnershipType] => PURCHASED [signedDate] => 1751868174651 [environment] => Production [transactionReason] => PURCHASE // Original purchase [storefront] => USA [storefrontId] => 143441 [price] => 100000 [currency] => USD [appTransactionId] => 700000000000000001 // Different value ) [1] => Array ( [transactionId] => 1000000000000002 [originalTransactionId] => 1000000000000001 [webOrderLineItemId] => 1000000000000002 [bundleId] => com.example.myapp [productId] => MonthlySubscription [subscriptionGroupIdentifier] => 20000000 [purchaseDate] => 1746376032000 [originalPurchaseDate] => 1746347349000 [expiresDate] => 1749054432000 [quantity] => 1 [type] => Auto-Renewable Subscription [inAppOwnershipType] => PURCHASED [signedDate] => 1751868174651 [environment] => Production [transactionReason] => RENEWAL // First auto-renewal [storefront] => USA [storefrontId] => 143441 [price] => 100000 [currency] => USD [appTransactionId] => 700000000000000002 // Same for renewals ) [2] => Array ( [transactionId] => 1000000000000003 [originalTransactionId] => 1000000000000001 [webOrderLineItemId] => 1000000000000003 [bundleId] => com.example.myapp [productId] => MonthlySubscription [subscriptionGroupIdentifier] => 20000000 [purchaseDate] => 1749054432000 [originalPurchaseDate] => 1749025657000 [expiresDate] => 1751646432000 [quantity] => 1 [type] => Auto-Renewable Subscription [inAppOwnershipType] => PURCHASED [signedDate] => 1751868174651 [environment] => Production [transactionReason] => RENEWAL // Second auto-renewal [storefront] => USA [storefrontId] => 143441 [price] => 100000 [currency] => USD [appTransactionId] => 700000000000000002 // Same as previous renewal ) [3] => Array ( [transactionId] => 1000000000000004 [originalTransactionId] => 1000000000000001 [webOrderLineItemId] => 1000000000000004 [bundleId] => com.example.myapp [productId] => MonthlySubscription [subscriptionGroupIdentifier] => 20000000 [purchaseDate] => 1751646432000 [originalPurchaseDate] => 1751617840000 [expiresDate] => 1754324832000 [quantity] => 1 [type] => Auto-Renewable Subscription [inAppOwnershipType] => PURCHASED [signedDate] => 1751868174651 [environment] => Production [transactionReason] => RENEWAL // Third auto-renewal [storefront] => USA [storefrontId] => 143441 [price] => 100000 [currency] => USD [appTransactionId] => 700000000000000002 // Same as previous renewals ) ) Questions Is this behavior expected? Should the appTransactionId change between the original purchase and subsequent renewals within the same subscription group, especially when there are no user actions (upgrades/downgrades/cancellations/resubscriptions)? What determines the appTransactionId value? The documentation doesn't clearly explain when this identifier might change or what triggers a new value. This is particularly puzzling since this is a straightforward auto-renewal scenario. How should we handle this in our backend logic? Should we treat transactions with different appTransactionId values as separate entities, or should we rely on originalTransactionId for grouping related subscription transactions? Is this a known issue? We've seen similar concerns in the community regarding transaction ID inconsistencies, but this specific case involves a clean auto-renewal flow without any complicating factors.

We are running into exceptions when trying to parse Purchase Date and Original Purchase Date from the base64 encoded receipt. Expected RFC 3339 format of ASN.1 Field Value is: yyyy-MM-ddTHH:mm:ssZ but we end up getting back 2025-04-22T19.49.03Z. Started to happen on 3rd Dec 2024.

Hello is there a way to only allow credit card that is from a certain country to access in-app subscription in my app? Lets say I will only allow credit card from Singapore. I don't think its possible with In-App purchase but my colleague wanted to know and I just wanted to double check here.

We’re encountering a problem with StoreKit in the sandbox environment. During an SKProductsRequest, some or all of the product identifiers provided are being returned in the invalidProductIdentifiers array of the SKProductsResponse, despite being valid and already approved. This behavior began occurring since last 2 days only and appears to be intermittent—in some cases, a product identifier that initially fails will succeed after one or two retries, without any changes on our end. What we've verified: All product identifiers are correctly configured and approved in App Store Connect. No recent changes have been made to our product configuration. The same product identifiers have previously worked without issue. We would appreciate any assistance in identifying the root cause of this behavior. Please also let us know if there is a known issue currently affecting StoreKit sandbox services. Thank you for your support.

Hello, Is anyone else seeing Purchase.PurchaseResult.UserCancelled, despite a successful transaction? I had a user notify me today that he: Attempted a purchase Entered payment credentials Was asked to opt in to email subscription notifications Opted In Was shown my app's "User Canceled Purchase" UI Attempted to repurchase Was alerted that he was "Already Subscribed" I have adjusted my code to check Transaction.currentEntitlements on receiving a .userCancelled result, to avoid this in the future. Is this logically sound? Here is my code - please let me know if you see any issues: func purchase(product: Product, userId: String) async throws -> StoreKit.Transaction { let purchaseUUID = UUID() let options: Set<Product.PurchaseOption> = [.appAccountToken(purchaseUUID)] let result = try await product.purchase(options: options) switch result { case .success(let verification): guard case .verified(let tx) = verification else { throw PurchaseError.verificationFailed // Show Error UI } return try await processVerified(tx) case .userCancelled: for await result in Transaction.currentEntitlements { if case .verified(let tx) = result, tx.productID == product.id, tx.revocationDate == nil { return try await processVerified(tx) } } throw PurchaseError.cancelled // Show User Cancelled UI case .pending: throw PurchaseError.pending // Show Pending UI @unknown default: throw PurchaseError.unknown // Show Error UI } } @MainActor func processVerified(_ transaction: StoreKit.Transaction) async throws -> StoreKit.Transaction { let id = String(transaction.id) if await transactionCache.contains(id) { await transaction.finish() return transaction // Show Success UI } let (ok, error) = await notifyServer(transaction) guard ok else { throw error ?? PurchaseError.serverFailure(nil) // Show Error UI } await transaction.finish() await transactionCache.insert(id) return transaction // Show Success UI } The only place the "User Cancelled Purchase" UI is displayed on my app is after the one instance of "throw PurchaseError.cancelled" above. This happened in Production, but I have also seen userCancelled happen unexpectedly in Sandbox. Thank you for your time and help.

I've just released my first on app store. I have monthly renewing subscription on my app, there is no pay wall for few days. When I look at my app store page after release it shows me app price upfront instead of users download the app. I know I have subscription, but I don't want it to be upfront before install I know other store that have the same model and users get to download their app. What am I missing?

Hi, I am experiencing an issue with in-app subscriptions in my React Native application known-singles, using the react-native-iap library. When a user subscribes to a plan, the transaction executes successfully, and a receipt is returned. However, the transaction remains in a pending state indefinitely and does not update. Additionally, the transaction amount is not deposited into my bank account, even though all banking details are correctly set up in App Store Connect. We have thoroughly debugged the issue on our end but could not identify the cause. TestFlight transactions complete successfully, but real purchases remain stuck in pending status. Here are the relevant details of our implementation: React Native version: 0.60.4 react-native-iap version: 4.2.2 Could you please assist in resolving this issue? Any guidance on why transactions are not being completed and why payouts are not being processed would be greatly appreciated. Looking forward to your support.

The majority of our sandbox calls to verifyReceipt end in an ETIMEDOUT error. This is making it very difficult to verify our purchase flow for our pending release. We have not yet migrated to StoreKit 2 and still rely on this API endpoint. The Apple API status page reports no issues. Is anyone else encountering this?

One of our customers subscribed to a monthly plan on August 16 but the server-to-server notification seems to have been sent on August 18. What could be the reasons for such a delay between the purchase and the server-to-server notification which are usually sent right after the purchase? The receipt sent along with the notification seems to confirm that the receipt has only been created 2 days after the purchase. Here is an extract: { "environment": "Production", "receipt": { "receipt_type": "Production", "bundle_id": "fr.gaumontvideo.gaumontclassique", "application_version": "613", "receipt_creation_date": "2025-08-18 13:00:16 Etc/GMT", "receipt_creation_date_ms": "1755522016000", "receipt_creation_date_pst": "2025-08-18 06:00:16 America/Los_Angeles", "request_date": "2025-08-25 13:08:27 Etc/GMT", "request_date_ms": "1756127307346", "request_date_pst": "2025-08-25 06:08:27 America/Los_Angeles", "original_purchase_date": "2022-05-11 06:14:37 Etc/GMT", "original_purchase_date_ms": "1652249677000", "original_purchase_date_pst": "2022-05-10 23:14:37 America/Los_Angeles", "original_application_version": "265", "in_app": [ { "quantity": "1", "product_id": "fr.gaumontvideo.gaumontclassique.subscription.monthly.apple", "transaction_id": "270002386706194", "original_transaction_id": "270002386706194", "purchase_date": "2025-08-16 08:02:06 Etc/GMT", "purchase_date_ms": "1755331326000", "purchase_date_pst": "2025-08-16 01:02:06 America/Los_Angeles", "original_purchase_date": "2025-08-16 08:02:08 Etc/GMT", "original_purchase_date_ms": "1755331328000", "original_purchase_date_pst": "2025-08-16 01:02:08 America/Los_Angeles", "expires_date": "2025-09-16 08:02:06 Etc/GMT", "expires_date_ms": "1758009726000", "expires_date_pst": "2025-09-16 01:02:06 America/Los_Angeles" } }

Dear Apple Technical Support Team, We have encountered a potential issue related to transaction handling while using StoreKit v2, and would greatly appreciate your assistance in confirming the behavior or providing any relevant guidance. Issue Description: When calling Transaction.unfinished and listening to Transaction.updates on the client side, we noticed that some transactions—despite having already been processed and successfully completed with finish()—are being returned again upon the next app launch, which results in duplicate receipt uploads. Current Handling Flow: 1. Upon app launch: • Iterate over Transaction.unfinished to retrieve unfinished transactions; • Simultaneously listen for transaction changes via Transaction.updates (e.g., renewals, refunds); 2. For each verified transaction, we immediately call await transaction.finish(); 3. We then construct a transaction model, store it locally, and report it to our backend for receipt verification; 4. After the server successfully verifies the receipt, the client deletes the corresponding local record; 5. On every app launch, the client checks for any locally stored receipts that haven’t been uploaded, and re-uploads them if necessary. Key Code Snippets: private static func verifyReceipt(receiptResult: VerificationResult) -> Transaction? { switch receiptResult { case .unverified(_, _): return nil case .verified(let signedType): return signedType } } public static func handleUnfinishedTransactions(payConfig: YCStoreKitPayConfig, complete: ((YCStoreKitReceiptModel?) -> Void)?) { Task.detached { for await unfinishedResult in Transaction.unfinished { let transaction = YCStoreKitV2Manager.verifyReceipt(receiptResult: unfinishedResult) if let transaction { await transaction.finish() if transaction.revocationDate == nil { let receipt = YCStoreKitV2Manager.createStoreKitReceiptModel( transation: transaction, jwsString: unfinishedResult.jwsRepresentation, payConfig: payConfig, isRenew: false ) complete?(receipt) } } } } } private func observeTransactionUpdates() -> Task<Void, Never> { return Task { for await updateResult in Transaction.updates { let transaction = YCStoreKitV2Manager.verifyReceipt(receiptResult: updateResult) if let transaction { await transaction.finish() if transaction.revocationDate == nil { let receipt = YCStoreKitV2Manager.createStoreKitReceiptModel( transation: transaction, jwsString: updateResult.jwsRepresentation, payConfig: self.payConfig, isRenew: false ) self.callProgressChanged(.receiptPrepared, receiptModel: receipt, errorType: .none, error: nil) } } } } } Our Questions: 1. Is it possible for Transaction.unfinished or Transaction.updates to return transactions that have already been finished? Specifically, if a transaction was successfully finished in a previous app launch, could it still be returned again during the next launch? 2. Are there any flaws in our current handling process? Our current sequence is: finish() → construct model → local save → report to server → delete after verification. Could this order lead to timing issues where StoreKit considers a transaction unfinished? 3. If we need your assistance in investigating specific user transaction records or logs, what key information should we provide? We greatly appreciate your support and look forward to your response to help us further optimize our transaction processing logic.

I have an Expo React Native application and I am using react-native-iap library. I have setup the URL for sandbox and production url to receive notifications when a something happens regarding subscriptions. I am not able to receive those notifications when I simulate the purchase on the Simulator using Xcode. I then have used the node library app-store-server-library to mock a test notification and I am receiving the test notification when I call requestTestNotification method. below is the react-native code I am using: import {useEffect, useState} from "react"; import { initConnection, Sku, Subscription, useIAP, SubscriptionIOS, requestSubscription, PurchaseError, clearTransactionIOS } from "react-native-iap"; import styles from "@/screens/IAP/IAPStyles"; import CustomText from "@/components/CustomText"; import Heading from "@/components/Heading"; import subscriptionsProducts from "@/utilities/products"; function IAPScreen() { const [isPurchasing, setIsPurchasing] = useState<boolean>(false); const [loading, setLoading] = useState<boolean>(false); const { subscriptions, currentPurchase, finishTransaction, getSubscriptions } = useIAP(); function RenderProduct({ item } : { item: Subscription }) { const iosSubscription: SubscriptionIOS = item as SubscriptionIOS; return( <View style={styles.productCard}> <CustomText customStyles={styles.productTitle} text={iosSubscription.title} size={"medium"} /> <CustomText customStyles={styles.productDescription} text={iosSubscription.description} size={"small"} /> <CustomText customStyles={styles.productPrice} text={iosSubscription.localizedPrice} size={"small"} /> <Button title="Purchase" disabled={isPurchasing} onPress={ () => HandlePurchase(iosSubscription.productId) } /> </View> ); } async function HandlePurchase(sku: Sku) { try { setIsPurchasing(true); await requestSubscription({ sku, andDangerouslyFinishTransactionAutomaticallyIOS: false }); } catch (error: any) { Alert.alert("Error", "Failed to purchase: " + error.message); } finally { setIsPurchasing(false); } } useEffect(() => { setLoading(true); console.log(`[${new Date().toISOString()}] Initializing IAP connection...`); const setupIAP = async () => { try { const result = await initConnection(); console.log(`[${new Date().toISOString()}] IAP connection initialized:`, result); await clearTransactionIOS(); await getSubscriptions({ skus: subscriptionsProducts }); } catch (error: any) { Alert.alert("Error", "Failed to load products: " + error.message); } finally { setLoading(false); } }; setupIAP() .finally(() => setLoading(false)); }, []); useEffect(() => { const checkCurrentPurchase = async () => { try { if(currentPurchase?.productId) { console.log("Current purchase: ", currentPurchase); console.log("Transaction Id: ", currentPurchase.transactionId); await finishTransaction({ purchase: currentPurchase, isConsumable: false, }); } } catch (error) { if(error instanceof PurchaseError) { console.log("Purchase error: ", error); } else { Alert.alert("Error", "Failed to finish transaction: " + error); } } } if(currentPurchase) { console.log("Finishing current purchase."); checkCurrentPurchase() .catch(error => Alert.alert("Error", "Failed to finish transaction: " + error.message)); } }, [currentPurchase, finishTransaction]); return( <View style={styles.mainContainer}> <Heading text={"Packages & Subscriptions"} type={"h2"} customStyles={styles.header} /> { loading ? <ActivityIndicator size="large" /> : subscriptions.length > 0 ? ( <> <FlatList data={subscriptions} renderItem={RenderProduct} keyExtractor={(item) => item.productId} /> </> ) : ( <CustomText customStyles={styles.productDescription} text={"No available products."} size={"small"} /> ) } </View> ); } export default IAPScreen; I am using a store kit file where I just edited the scheme of application to use that store kit file. I would be really thankful If you can help me in this matter.

Product.SubscriptionInfo.isEligibleForIntroOffer(for: "21340582") In the production environment, I have already used the intro offer for this group, but this method still returns true

Product.SubscriptionInfo.isEligibleForIntroOffer(for: "21340582") In the production environment, I have already used the intro offer for this group, but this method still returns true.

I confirm that the configured callback address is accurate and can be called using Postman. The server receives notification messages from IAP

A purchase can result in success with verificationResult .unverified. Is there a list of reasons for which the transaction might be unverified and how should i handle it in my app? From my understanding, a successful unverified transaction means the user has already paid for the purchase. So, do i just ignore the unverified transaction or do i provide content to the user anyways?

We’ve recently observed an escalating number of complaints from AlipayHK users regarding duplicate charges when completing transactions via Apple Pay. While no similar issues have been reported by users of other credit card providers integrated with Apple Pay, the problem appears isolated to AlipayHK transactions. Key Details: Multiple users confirm being charged twice for single transactions. Complaints are increasing in frequency, indicating a potential systemic issue. No overlapping reports from non-AlipayHK payment methods at this time. To safeguard customer trust and ensure seamless payment experiences, we kindly request Apple’s support in: Investigating whether the root cause stems from Apple Pay’s transaction handling. Collaborating with AlipayHK (if necessary) to resolve the issue promptly. Providing guidance on interim measures to prevent further duplicate charges. Could Apple confirm if this is a known issue and share a timeline for resolution? We’re eager to assist in any way possible to mitigate impact on users. Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter.

Because of historical reasons we have the same app with different bundle identifiers in different App Stores, e. g. one in Germany and one in Poland and one in France. Every app offers a monthly and a yearly in app subscription. We want to consolidate our apps and user base and want to have only one app in the end. The question is now: Can Apple make the monthly/daily subscriptions from e. g. the app in the store in Poland available or migrate them to the german app in the german App Store when we make the "german" app available also in Poland? The final goal would be that a user who bought a subscription in the polish store would have the subscription also available on his Apple ID in the german store. Is this possible? Can Apple make this possible?

I have non-consumable and consumable in-app purchases in my app. The tutorial I was following stated Transaction.currentEntitlements includes unfinished consumables, which is incorrect according to the documentation. Is the correct way to handle unfinished consumables (and non-consumables) to implement Transaction.updates and call finish() if it’s verified? The documentation says that listener will receive unfinished transactions once upon app launch, so with that, do I understand correctly you do not need to implement Transaction.unfinished unless you want to look for unfinished transactions manually later on? Otherwise what is the correct and most recommended way to handle unfinished consumables? Is there a way to test that scenario in Xcode?

Hi, We're currently experiencing an issue with consumable In-App Purchases on our production iOS app. Until the end of May, everything was working as expected, but starting in early June, our app no longer receives any products when calling queryProductDetails() using Flutter’s in_app_purchase plugin (which utilizes StoreKit). Here’s what we’ve confirmed so far: The product IDs are correctly configured in App Store Connect, and all items are marked as “Approved.” No recent changes have been made to the bundle ID or the product IDs. The “Base Territory” setting was updated for each IAP item in early May. After that change, product retrieval and purchases were working normally through the end of May. This issue is happening on real devices in production, and multiple users are affected. The same functionality continues to work correctly on Android. All requested product IDs are being returned in the notFoundIDs list of the queryProductDetails() response. We're quite puzzled by this issue as no clear cause has been identified so far. Any thoughts on this issue would be much appreciated. Thank you!