Mistress Gets Caught With a Married Man in the Worst Place
Credibility score: 45/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Mistress Gets Caught With a Married Man in the Worst Place" and rated it 45/100 for credibility (a BS score of 55/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-08-27. Its weakest claim — "Man tries to buy goodwill with past donations — cop shuts it down." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as plain sales pitch. 58 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 58 claims analyzed: 13 scored under 40, 36 between 40 and 69, and 9 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Cops called to McDonald's parking lot over couple in car — sets up 'shocking' public exposure — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:00
Opens with 'McDonald's parking lot' like that's the worst part — fear of public humiliation doing the work.
Why this score: Using the mundane location (McDonald's lot) as the punchline to heighten the scandal. The real hook is the passer-by filming and the awkward handshake, but the framing sells public embarrassment before any facts land.
Original quote: “In Palm City, Florida, deputies with the Martin County Sheriff's Office were sent to a McDonald's parking lot after a passer by recorded video of a couple in a parked car and called it in. By the time deputies arrived, one of the two people involved was already offering officers a handshake, which…”
Cop frames public sex as obvious crime — skips the actual statute. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:58
Calls it a crime, never names which law they're breaking — classic empty badge flex 💀
Why this score: He's leaning on the moral weight of 'public place' while gliding past the legal reality that indecent exposure statutes usually require a specific victim or complainant. No victim mentioned yet, just vibes and authority.
Original quote: “You do know it's a public place. You guys have the door wide open and there's people everywhere here.”
Cop refuses handshake — turns disgust into moral authority. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 1:38
Uses personal revulsion as evidence of wrongdoing — the hand becomes the verdict 😈
Why this score: The refusal isn't policy; it's theater. He's weaponizing the viewer's gag reflex to stand in for actual charges. No law cited, just the theatrical withdrawal of basic courtesy.
Original quote: “I'm not touching your hand after what I just saw.”
Man tries to buy goodwill with past donations — cop shuts it down. — Plain Sales Pitch (20/100)
At 2:02
Bribes with 'support' after getting caught — the world's cheapest get-out-of-jail card 💀
Why this score: He's pivoting from caught-in-the-act to campaign donor in one breath. The cop doesn't even dignify it; the move is so predictable the officer just keeps writing the ticket in his head.
Original quote: “You have no idea how much money I put into the sheriff's department. If you look at my background, how much money I put into police uh the sheriff's department, you understand?”
Asks if they called — implies the couple might have reported themselves — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:14
Officer asks if they called the cops on themselves — the question assumes someone complained, but never clarifies who actually did.
Why this score: The cop's question plants the idea that the couple might have self-reported, which makes no sense. It sidesteps the real context: someone else called, and the police are now treating a noise complaint as an interrogation about a 'crime.' The framing makes the couple look suspicious for simply existing in the situation.
Original quote: “So nobody's talked to the callers or are you the one that called?”
Labels public sex a 'crime' needing a victim — legal overreach — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:19
Cop calls consensual sex a 'crime' while admitting no victim exists — that's a charge looking for a reason.
Why this score: The officer frames the act as criminal despite acknowledging there's no victim or complainant. The word 'crime' carries legal weight that doesn't match the actual situation: two adults in a public place. The framing justifies police involvement when the real issue is public indecency at most.
Original quote: “For this crime, there needs to be there needs to be a victim for it, right?”
Dismisses public sex as 'no one here' — ignores McDonald's lot reality — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:55
Claims 'no one here' while parked in a McDonald's lot — the audience is already watching the bodycam.
Why this score: He frames the act as private because he didn't see anyone walk by, conveniently skipping that the parking lot is public property where customers come and go constantly. The bodycam proves his audience problem was already solved for him.
Original quote: “we're fooling around... Okay. Where other people can see? Uh, we're right here.”
Calls public car sex "just fooling around" — downplays it — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:55
Treats getting caught mid-act like a casual hangout — the language does the minimizing.
Why this score: By labeling the act as innocent play rather than public indecency, he dodges the real issue: location and legality. The cop immediately flags the nonchalant tone.
Original quote: “We're fooling around.”
Claims empty lot then admits possible witnesses — self-contradiction — Volume Game (45/100)
At 3:09
Opens with "no one here," then quietly walks it back when pressed. The retraction is softer than the claim.
Why this score: He wants the benefit of the empty-lot excuse while keeping an out if witnesses appear. Classic volume: loud denial, quiet correction.
Original quote: “there was really no one here. Maybe someone came by and saw us.”
Demotes mistress to "girlfriend or something" — re-labels the relationship — Missing Context (45/100)
At 3:23
The downgrade from affair partner to vague girlfriend dodges the marriage he’s already in.
Why this score: Calling her "girlfriend or something" erases the other woman status and the wife back home. The cop’s follow-up questions are trying to drag that missing context back into the frame.
Original quote: “she's my girlfriend or something.”
Downgrades wife to 'girlfriend or something' — language doing the heavy lifting — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 3:25
Calling his wife 'girlfriend or something' softens the betrayal before he even finishes the sentence.
Why this score: The vagueness isn't accidental. 'Girlfriend or something' makes the marriage sound casual, almost optional. It's the same move people use when they want credit for honesty without actually saying the hard word: wife.
Original quote: “she's my girlfriend or something... having a good time, that's all.”
Claims cash solves everything — missing the legal exposure. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 4:38
Reduces the situation to 'just money' — ignores the felony charges and open trunk gun.
Why this score: He frames the whole mess as a cash transaction, but the bodycam shows the real stakes: loaded firearm, public sex, and the cop refusing the handshake.
Original quote: “This is money. That's all it is.”
Reduces sex to cash, nothing else matters — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 4:38
Turns the whole situation into 'just money' — erases the marriage, the risk, the cop watching.
Why this score: He frames the encounter as a simple transaction so the moral weight disappears. The cop's presence and the fact they're in a McDonald's parking lot prove it's not that simple.
Original quote: “This is money. That's all it is.”
Reducing the situation to cash, dismissing everything else. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 4:38
Tries to wave away the affair like it's just a transaction — the cop's not buying it.
Why this score: He's pretending the only thing that matters is money in his pocket, ignoring the actual crime they're investigating: public indecency and the gun in the car. Classic dodge.
Original quote: “This is money. That's all it is.”
Claims the gun is for protecting the cops — Straw Man (20/100)
At 4:49
Paints himself as the officers' guardian while they're literally arresting him. The move is so obvious the cop won't even shake his hand.
Why this score: He tries to flip the power dynamic by claiming the loaded weapon exists to help law enforcement. The cops' refusal to engage shows they see straight through it.
Original quote: “My gun's right there. I protect all you guys. That's why I have this [__] in my car.”
Trying to explain her behavior with ethnicity, then pivoting to alcohol. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 4:56
Bringing up her Italian heritage like it explains anything — the cop shuts that down immediately.
Why this score: He's reaching for any category that might get them off the hook. Ethnicity has zero to do with public sex in a parking lot. The cop correctly ignores it.
Original quote: “She's 100% Italian and that's one thing. But you have been drinking.”
Admits fooling around in public, then tries to downplay — Volume Game (45/100)
At 5:16
Says the act out loud, then immediately pivots to 'the thing is we were in the car' like location changes the stakes.
Why this score: He confesses the behavior, then tries to redirect attention to logistics. The parking lot and open door already answered that question for the cops.
Original quote: “I imagine we were fooling around. Uh but the thing is is that we were in the car”
Admitting the act while claiming 'nobody's' watching — despite the cop standing there. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 5:16
Swears 'nobody's watching' while actively being watched by police. Bold. Stupid, but bold.
Why this score: The contradiction is so immediate it barely needs comment. He's mid-interaction with law enforcement and still insisting no one saw them.
Original quote: “I imagine we were fooling around. Uh but the thing is is that we were in the car reference to the previous door was open and I swear to God nobody's”
Repeatedly pointing out the gun like it should reassure the cops. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 5:31
Keeps naming the gun as if transparency erases the problem of having one during a sex bust.
Why this score: He's treating the presence of a loaded firearm like a character reference instead of the obvious escalation it is. The cops are visibly unimpressed.
Original quote: “My gun's right there.”
Claims a loaded gun is 'protection' — never explains why it's needed for sex. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 5:51
Calls the firearm 'protection' without saying what he's protecting himself from in a McDonald's parking lot.
Why this score: The gun is suddenly a shield, not a threat. The cop doesn't buy it; neither do the commenters who keep bringing up the same point.
Original quote: “I have a [ __ ] loaded arm right there.”
Calls being detained 'crazy' — ignores why police are there — Missing Context (45/100)
At 6:39
Acts shocked by basic procedure — they were caught having sex in public.
Why this score: He's treating a routine detention like some random injustice. The context he leaves out is that the cops were called because two people were screwing in a McDonald's parking lot. 'Crazy' only works if you pretend the sex never happened.
Original quote: “What's your question? I don't even know what's going on, though. Uh, but because you're not free to go at this moment in time, that's crazy.”
Claims they were 'just hanging out' then admits sex — downplays the act — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 7:17
Starts with the mildest possible description, then quietly confesses the real thing.
Why this score: He tries to sell 'hanging out' first, then admits intercourse once pressed. The framing move is obvious: soften the language until the cop forces the actual answer. 'Locked inside my car' is doing extra work to make it sound less intentional.
Original quote: “We were hanging out over here inside my car. That's it. Okay. Just hanging out in your car? Yes. Were you doing anything in your car? Yes, I was. But I was locked inside my car.”
Calls married man 'my boyfriend' — casual ownership framing — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 7:34
Labels a married man as 'boyfriend' like that changes the math. 😈
Why this score: The word 'boyfriend' erases the actual marital status and pretends the relationship exists in a vacuum. The cop just asked 'who's he to you?' and she picked the cleanest label instead of the true one.
Original quote: “He's a my boyfriend.”
Cop drops the wife fact — reveals the missing context — Missing Context (45/100)
At 8:23
She said 'my man' for six minutes. Cop just reminded everyone he has an actual wife somewhere. 💀
Why this score: The entire conversation ran on the polite fiction that this was two single adults until the cop named the wife. That one line collapses the whole 'just hanging out' story.
Original quote: “What are you guys doing here at the McDonald's? His wife is somewhere else.”
Cop drops 'his wife is somewhere else' — she just says 'okay' like it's weather — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 8:23
The cop names the wife. Her response is a shrug. That silence is doing the heavy lifting.
Why this score: The officer explicitly invokes the wife as the reason this is happening. Her flat 'okay' treats that as background noise. The emotional button is the cop forcing her to confront the third person in the car who isn't physically there.
Original quote: “What are you guys doing here at the McDonald's? His wife is somewhere else. Okay. Yeah.”
Mistress claims affair going six months — personal story, no evidence check. — Personal Story (60/100)
At 9:04
One woman's lived experience — roast the logic, not the receipts.
Why this score: She turns six months of sneaking around into a straight timeline like it proves something bigger. Personal stories aren't evidence; they're just diaries with better lighting.
Original quote: “He's trying to get away from his wife. I said, "Hey, come over here. We've been getting together for about 6 months now."”
Six-month affair timeline dropped like it's normal — No Frame (75/100)
At 9:06
Straight admission, no spin — just laying out the duration.
Why this score: The woman is stating a factual timeline of the affair. No exaggeration, no minimization. It's a direct answer to the question.
Original quote: “We've been getting together for about 6 months now.”
Claims he earns $100k from her business — flex with zero proof. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 9:40
Drops a six-figure number like it's audited — no books, no receipts.
Why this score: She wants you to see a power imbalance, but the only number that matters is the one she invented on the spot. Confidence without evidence is just expensive noise.
Original quote: “he makes probably about 100,000 off me a year.”
Brags about his income while parked at Cracker Barrel — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 9:40
Flexing six figures from the mistress role — the absurdity writes itself.
Why this score: She's trying to establish legitimacy by citing his earnings, but the setting undercuts it. The financial detail feels like a weird flex in an already ridiculous situation.
Original quote: “he makes probably about 100,000 off me a year.”
Blames the wife for their car sex — classic victim flip. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 9:48
Turns the cheated-on spouse into the villain so the affair looks justified.
Why this score: She frames the wife as the reason they couldn't use a hotel — like the wife's existence is the problem, not the affair. That's not logic, that's narrative gymnastics.
Original quote: “wife is going to lose her shed.”
Vehicle sex justified by car hierarchy — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 10:00
Better car = better place to cheat. The logic is unhinged in the best way.
Why this score: Her reasoning for why they chose the car over the nearby hotel is so petty and specific that it transcends judgment. It's pure chaotic energy.
Original quote: “Um because I have a better car than he does.”
Chooses car sex because her car is nicer — status flex over common sense. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 10:00
Picks McDonald's parking lot over a hotel room for car superiority. Peak priorities.
Why this score: She'd rather risk public exposure than let him drive. That's not passion — that's a parking-lot flex with extra steps.
Original quote: “Um because I have a better car than he does.”
Claims 100% certainty that nobody witnessed the act in an open parking lot — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 10:58
100% certainty that no one saw anything in a public parking lot with open doors — that's optimism, not evidence 💀
Why this score: The speaker asserts absolute certainty about the absence of witnesses in a 'public accessible parking lot' where 'anybody can drive through.' This creates a confidence mismatch where the claimed certainty far exceeds what's knowable about who may have passed by during the incident. The framing minimizes potential public exposure by asserting knowledge that cannot be verified.
Original quote: “I know for a fact nobody saw anything. I 100% nobody saw anything”
100% certainty nobody saw — confidence with zero evidence — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 11:01
Says '100%' right after admitting the door was open in a public lot. Confidence is doing all the work here.
Why this score: He claims absolute certainty that no one witnessed them despite the door being open in a McDonald's parking lot where anyone could drive through. The '100%' is pure bravado with zero supporting evidence.
Original quote: “I 100% nobody saw anything.”
Contradicts himself in the same breath — volume game — Volume Game (20/100)
At 11:14
Calls himself non-law-abiding, then immediately claims to be law-abiding. The retraction is quieter than the original claim.
Why this score: He admits 'I'm not a law-abiding citizen' then instantly flips to 'I'm a lawabiding citizen' — classic volume play where the correction gets buried under the initial statement.
Original quote: “I'm not a law-abiding citizen... I'm a lawabiding citizen.”
Calls himself 'law-abiding citizen' while admitting to public indecency — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 11:14
Claims 'law-abiding citizen' status while actively breaking the law — that's not confusion, that's comedy 💀
Why this score: The speaker equates being polite with officers to being a law-abiding citizen, despite admitting to public indecency. This creates a false equivalence between surface-level compliance and actual legal behavior. The framing attempts to minimize the offense by claiming an identity that directly contradicts the actions being discussed.
Original quote: “I'm a law abiding citizen”
Arrest announced with zero legal detail upfront — Missing Context (45/100)
At 12:34
Drops 'under arrest' before naming the actual charge — classic cop power move.
Why this score: By leading with the arrest itself instead of the statute, the officer creates the impression that the couple already knows why they're in trouble. The legal basis only surfaces later, after the couple has been placed on the defensive.
Original quote: “All right. So, you are under arrest tonight for conduct.”
Woman claims they weren't exposed — legal irrelevance ignored — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 13:22
Equates 'no intercourse' with 'no crime' — disorderly conduct doesn't require either.
Why this score: She tries to argue that because the act wasn't full sex and they were clothed, nothing illegal happened. The statute cited later ('corrupts public morals or breach of peace') covers exactly the situation the officer describes, so the defense rests on a non-existent legal shield.
Original quote: “Because I know for a fact we weren't being decently exposured.”
Officer correctly cites statute but frames it as obvious — No Frame (75/100)
At 13:40
Straight legal citation — no embellishment, just the text that applies.
Why this score: The officer names the precise statutory language ('corrupts public morals or breach of peace') and notes that full exposure isn't required. It's the cleanest moment in the exchange: the law is quoted, not dramatized.
Original quote: “forest penetration, anything of that is irrelevant even though I know you you guys didn't because there was still a the actual statute verbiage is corrupts public morals or breach of peace”
Donations should matter to the cop — relevance dodge — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 14:48
Brings up cash to law enforcement like it's a get-out-of-jail card. Never was.
Why this score: He's implying his donations create some obligation or leniency. The officer's job isn't to run donor background checks before deciding if disorderly conduct happened.
Original quote: “he tells the deputy how much he supports law enforcement and specifically mentions how much money he's personally put into the sheriff's department over the years”
We're law-abiding — while being charged — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 15:43
Calling yourselves law-abiding citizens mid-arrest isn't a defense. It's a reflex that ignores the moment.
Why this score: The phrase gets repeated like a magic shield. It doesn't change that the deputies are deciding charges right then. It's not a legal argument — it's a nervous tick dressed up as character evidence.
Original quote: “refers to himself and her as law-abiding citizens... while deputies are actively working out what to charge them with”
Paints the affair as a simple getaway — skips the six-month pattern already running. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 16:33
Calls it a one-off escape when the transcript already said six months of repeats. That's the move.
Why this score: By framing the stop as a spontaneous need to 'get away,' the narration erases the ongoing timeline they just disclosed, softening the premeditation into something that sounds impulsive rather than scheduled.
Original quote: “He's also married and his wife isn't anywhere nearby. He told her he needed to get away from home for a bit.”
Claims he needed "to get away from home" — excuses the affair with generic phrasing. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 16:36
"Needed to get away" frames cheating as self-care instead of a choice.
Why this score: The phrasing turns a deliberate decision into an emotional necessity, softening the act before it even happens.
Original quote: “He told her he needed to get away from home for a bit. She suggested they meet up.”
Six-month affair presented as established fact without evidence. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 16:41
"Apparently" undercuts the certainty — the timeline is treated as settled with zero verification.
Why this score: The word signals rumor, yet the sentence delivers it like courtroom evidence.
Original quote: “They'd apparently been doing this for around 6 months.”
Justifies public sex by comparing car values. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 16:50
Treating vehicle quality as justification for exhibitionism is a non-sequitur.
Why this score: The logic equates material preference with legal and social exemption — the two aren't comparable.
Original quote: “Her car is nicer than his.”
Calls her answer 'unbothered' like that makes the logic sound — the line is doing the heavy lifting. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 16:50
Labeling the reply 'unbothered' sells the idea that blunt equals honest. The move hides how casually she owns the risk.
Why this score: The word choice frames her bluntness as refreshing instead of reckless; it steers the audience to admire the candor while ignoring that the candor is about choosing a parking lot over basic discretion.
Original quote: “Her answer is immediate and completely unbothered. Her car is nicer than his. It's the kind of response that isn't trying to justify anything.”
Repeated gun disclosure read as anxious overcompensation. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 17:07
Insisting on legal ownership after officers already moved on suggests performance, not transparency.
Why this score: The repetition itself becomes the tell — responsible disclosure doesn't require constant rehearsal.
Original quote: “He volunteers more than once and somewhat urgently that there's a loaded gun in the car.”
Direct contradiction on intercourse presented as he-said/she-said. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 18:11
One denial, one admission — the clip leaves which version is accurate unresolved.
Why this score: Without further evidence the audience is asked to pick a side based on delivery alone.
Original quote: “He tells an officer flatly that they didn't have intercourse, asking to be trusted on it, while she's already told a different deputy the opposite without hesitation.”
Sets up the contradiction as the big reveal — the real move is letting both stories sit without naming the charge that actually matters. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 18:11
Spotlights the he-said/she-said on sex while the transcript admits the deputies still hadn't landed on a charge. The contradiction distracts from the legal stall.
Why this score: The narration spotlights the conflicting statements about intercourse, yet the only concrete legal fact given is that it took deputies 45 minutes to decide what, if anything, to charge — the sex discrepancy may be dramatic but it isn't the bottleneck the story implies.
Original quote: “he tells an officer flatly that they didn't have intercourse, asking to be trusted on it, while she's already told a different deputy the opposite without hesitation.”
Felony impossible without child witness — statute blocks it — No Frame (75/100)
At 18:40
Straight legal breakdown. Statute requires minor witness; none confirmed. Clean.
Why this score: Speaker correctly identifies that the felony statute has a specific age requirement and that without confirmation of a minor witness, that charge is unavailable. This is straightforward legal analysis without loaded language or missing context.
Original quote: “There's a felony level statute that could theoretically apply here, but it specifically requires a witness under the age of 16. And while the original caller believed children nearby may have seen something, deputies can't actually confirm that happened. Without that, the felony option is off the…”
Felony statute requires minor witness — legal framing — No Frame (75/100)
At 18:40
Spells out the exact legal threshold without fluff. Straight legal analysis.
Why this score: Speaker is correctly identifying the statutory requirement for the felony charge and doesn't overstate its applicability.
Original quote: “There's a felony level statute that could theoretically apply here, but it specifically requires a witness under the age of 16.”
No minor witness = no felony charge — No Frame (75/100)
At 18:52
Clean legal conclusion based on the missing element. No exaggeration.
Why this score: Direct application of the statute's requirement to the facts at hand.
Original quote: “Without that, the felony option is off the table.”
Disorderly conduct standard is broad — no sex or nudity required — No Frame (75/100)
At 18:54
Clarifies the actual legal threshold. Public visibility plus upset witness is enough. Accurate.
Why this score: Speaker accurately explains that disorderly conduct in this jurisdiction has a lower bar than the couple seems to assume. The description of conduct that corrupts public morals or breaches the peace matches the facts presented without exaggeration or minimization.
Original quote: “What deputies land on instead is disorderly conduct, and the specific language behind that charge is broader than either of them seems to expect. It doesn't require proof of intercourse. It doesn't require someone to be caught exposed. The standard is closer to conduct that corrupts public morals…”
Disorderly conduct charge has low bar — legal clarification — No Frame (75/100)
At 19:04
Correctly notes the statute's low evidentiary threshold. Straightforward.
Why this score: Speaker accurately describes the broad language of the disorderly conduct statute.
Original quote: “It doesn't require proof of intercourse. It doesn't require someone to be caught exposed.”
Only woman arrested — outcome observation — No Frame (75/100)
At 19:41
States the visible outcome without speculation. Accurate.
Why this score: Simply reports what happened on camera without claiming to know why.
Original quote: “In the end, she's the one taken into custody. He isn't.”
Lists factors that may explain arrest decision — No Frame (75/100)
At 19:51
Identifies concrete, observable differences in the stop. No overreach.
Why this score: Speaker points to visible evidence rather than guessing at deputies' internal reasoning.
Original quote: “She's the one who was undressed. It's her vehicle. And for most of the interaction, she's also simply the one who told deputies the truth without making them work for it.”
Only woman charged — implies unequal treatment — Missing Context (45/100)
At 20:35
Skips the obvious reason she got charged: she was the one acting out on camera. 😈
Why this score: The framing makes it sound like gender bias when the tape shows her refusing to calm down while he stays quiet. The charge tracks the behavior, not the gender.
Original quote: “According to the case information, she was ultimately charged with disorderly conduct. He was not charged.”
He tried to talk his way out, she didn't — yet she got cuffed — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 20:48
The speaker presents the outcome as surprising when the tape already shows why she was the problem. 😈
Why this score: The 'unexpected' angle only works if you pretend her refusal to de-escalate didn't happen. The gap isn't mysterious — one person made the deputy's job harder.
Original quote: “What actually stands out watching this back isn't really the parking lot or the open door or even the gun. It's the gap between two people experiencing the exact same 45 minutes completely differently. One of them trying to talk his way around the situation with donations and denials. The other one…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →