Hi Team, We are trying to understand deep sleep behaviour, can you please help us clarifying on the below questions: When will we configure Hibernate 25, is it valid for M series MacBooks? Is Hibernate 25 called deep sleep mode? What are the settings I need to do on Mac, to make my Mac go in to deep sleep? When awakening from deep sleep , what would be macOS system behaviour? If we have custom SFAuthorization plug in at system.login.screensaver, what would be the behaviour with deep sleep?

On Tahoe and earlier, ScreenCapture permissions can disappear and not return. Customers are having an issue with this disappearing and when our code executes CGRequestScreenCaptureAccess() nothing happens, the prompt does not appear. I can reproduce this by using the "-" button and removing the entry in the settings, then adding it back with the "+" button. CGPreflightScreenCaptureAccess() always returns the correct value but once the entry has been removed, CGRequestScreenCaptureAccess() requires a reboot before it will work again.

We recently deployed Attestation on our application, and for a majority of the 40,000 users it works well. We have about six customers who are failing attestation. In digging through debug logs, we're seeing this error "iOS assertion verification failed. Unauthorized access attempted." We're assuming that the UUID is blocked somehow on Apple side but we're stumped as to why. We had a customer come in and we could look at the phone, and best we can tell it's just a generic phone with no jailbroken or any malicious apps. How can we determine if the UUID is blocked?

Hi, We are implementing Platform SSO and using attestKey during registration via ASAuthorizationProviderExtensionLoginManager. Could you clarify whether the attestKey flow involves sending attestation data to an Apple server for verification (similar to App Attest in the DeviceCheck framework), or if the attestation certificate chain is generated and signed entirely on-device without any Apple server interaction? The App Attest flow is clearly documented as using Apple’s attestation service, but the Platform SSO process is less clearly described. Thank you.

I'm seeing some odd behavior which may be a bug. I've broken it down to a least common denominator to reproduce it. But maybe I'm doing something wrong. I am opening a file read-write. I'm then mapping the file read-only and private: void* pointer = mmap(NULL, 17, PROT_READ, MAP_FILE | MAP_PRIVATE, fd, 0); I then unmap the memory and close the file. After the close, eslogger shows me this: {"close":{"modified":false,[...],"was_mapped_writable":false}} Which makes sense. I then change the mmap statement to: void* pointer = mmap(NULL, 17, PROT_READ, MAP_FILE | MAP_SHARED, fd, 0); I run the new code and and the close looks like: {"close":{"modified":false, [....], "was_mapped_writable":true}} Which also makes sense. I then run the original again (ie, with MAP_PRIVATE vs. MAP_SHARED) and the close looks like: {"close":{"modified":false,"was_mapped_writable":true,[...]} Which doesn't appear to be correct. Now if I just open and close the file (again, read-write) and don't mmap anything the close still shows: {"close":{ [...], "was_mapped_writable":true,"modified":false}} And the same is true if I open the file read-only. It will remain that way until I delete the file. If I recreate the file and try again, everything is good until I map it MAP_SHARED. I tried this with macOS 13.6.7 and macOS 15.0.1.

To use passkeys, you need to place the correct AASA file on the web server and add an entry in the Entitlements.plist, for example webcredentials:mydomain.com. This is clear so far, but I would like to ask if it's possible to set this webcredentials in a different way in the app? The reason for this is that we are developing a native app and our on-premise customers have their own web servers. We cannot know these domains in advance so creating a dedicated app for each customer is not option for us. Thank you for your help!

Hi https://appleid.apple.com/auth/authorize?client_id=com.adobe.services.adobeid-na1.web shows: invalid_request But https://appleid.apple.com/auth/authorize?client_id=xrqxnpjgps shows: invalid_client I've created a Primary App ID and ticked "Sign In with Apple". I've created a Service ID and ticked "Sign In with Apple" (identifier is xrqxnpjgps). When I click "Configure" for the "Sign In with Apple" of the Service ID, it is linked to the Primary App ID. Why do I get an invalid_client error? I've contacted the support by mail, and have been redirected here, does someone here have the ability/access/knowledge/will to figure out the cause and then tell me? Regards

Hello, We are experiencing an issue related to Sign in with Apple Server-to-Server (S2S) notifications, specifically involving repeated delivery of the account-deleted event, and would like to ask whether this behavior is expected or known. Background We have configured an S2S notification endpoint for Sign in with Apple in accordance with Apple’s requirements for account status change notifications. Our endpoint: Is reachable over HTTPS Consistently returns HTTP 200 OK Successfully receives other S2S events, including: email-enabled email-disabled consent-revoked Issue: Repeated 'account-deleted' events for the same Apple ID For most users, the account-deleted event is delivered only once, as expected. However, for a specific Apple ID used with Sign in with Apple, we are observing repeated deliveries of the same account-deleted event, arriving at regular intervals (approximately every 5 minutes). The payload contents are identical between deliveries and include the same user identifier (sub) and event timestamp. Notably: The Apple ID deletion itself completed successfully The payload does not change between deliveries Our endpoint continues to return HTTP 200 OK for every request Questions We would appreciate clarification on the following points: Is repeated delivery of the same account-deleted event expected behavior in any scenario? Is there a retry or redelivery mechanism for this event type, even when HTTP 200 is returned? Could repeated deliveries indicate that the deletion process is still considered “in progress” on Apple’s side? Are developers expected to treat account-deleted events as at-least-once delivery and handle them idempotently? Additional context While researching this issue, we found a forum thread describing a very similar case: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/735674 In that discussion, Apple staff advised submitting the issue via Feedback Assistant, which suggests that this behavior may already be understood internally. We have also submitted a Feedback Assistant report with detailed logs and timestamps. Any clarification on the expected behavior or recommended handling for this scenario would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and support.

Our background monitoring application uses a Unix executable that requests Screen Recording permission via CGRequestScreenCaptureAccess(). This worked correctly in macOS Tahoe 26.0.1, but broke in 26.1. Issue: After calling CGRequestScreenCaptureAccess() in macOS Tahoe 26.1: System dialog appears and opens System Settings Our executable does NOT appear in the Screen Recording list Manually adding via "+" button grants permission internally, but the executable still doesn't show in the UI Users cannot verify or revoke permissions Background: Unix executable runs as a background process (not from Terminal) Uses Accessibility APIs to retrieve window titles Same issue occurs with Full Disk Access permissions Environment: macOS Tahoe 26.1 (worked in 26.0.1) Background process (not launched from Terminal) Questions: Is this a bug or intentional design change in 26.1? What's the recommended approach for background executables to properly register with TCC? Are there specific requirements (Info.plist, etc.) needed? This significantly impacts user experience as they cannot manage permissions through the UI. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

Binary code is associated with the NSUserTrackingUsageDescription deleted at present, but in the revised App privacy will contain NSUserTrackingUsageDescription, I feel very confused, don't know should shouldn't solve.

Feedback ticket ID: FB21797397 Summary When using posix_spawn() with posix_spawnattr_set_uid_np() to spawn a child process with a different UID, the eslogger incorrectly reports a setuid event as an event originating from the parent process instead of the child process. Steps to Reproduce Create a binary that do the following: Configure posix_spawnattr_t that set the process UIDs to some other user ID (I'll use 501 in this example). Uses posix_spawn() to spawn a child process Run eslogger with the event types setuid, fork, exec Execute the binary as root process using sudo or from root owned shell Terminate the launched eslogger Observe the process field in the setuid event Expected behavior The eslogger will report events indicating a process launch and uid changes so the child process is set to 501. i.e.: fork setuid - Done by child process exec Actual behavior The process field in the setuid event is reported as the parent process (that called posix_spawn) - indicating UID change to the parent process. Attachments I'm attaching source code for a small project with a 2 binaries: I'll add the source code for the project at the end of the file + attach filtered eslogger JSONs One that runs the descirbed posix_spawn flow One that produces the exact same sequence of events by doing different operation and reaching a different process state: Parent calls fork() Parent process calls setuid(501) Child process calls exec() Why this is problematic Both binaries in my attachment do different operations, achieving different process state (1 is parent with UID=0 and child with UID=501 while the other is parent UID=501 and child UID=0), but report the same sequence of events. Code #include <cstdio> #include <spawn.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <sys/wait.h> #include <string.h> // environ contains the current environment variables extern char **environ; extern "C" { int posix_spawnattr_set_uid_np(posix_spawnattr_t *attr, uid_t uid); int posix_spawnattr_set_gid_np(posix_spawnattr_t *attr, gid_t gid); } int main() { pid_t pid; int status; posix_spawnattr_t attr; // 1. Define the executable path and arguments const char *path = "/bin/sleep"; char *const argv[] = {(char *)"sleep", (char *)"1", NULL}; // 2. Initialize spawn attributes if ((status = posix_spawnattr_init(&attr)) != 0) { fprintf(stderr, "posix_spawnattr_init: %s\n", strerror(status)); return EXIT_FAILURE; } // 3. Set the UID for the child process (e.g., UID 501) // Note: Parent must be root to change to a different user uid_t target_uid = 501; if ((status = posix_spawnattr_set_uid_np(&attr, target_uid)) != 0) { fprintf(stderr, "posix_spawnattr_set_uid_np: %s\n", strerror(status)); posix_spawnattr_destroy(&attr); return EXIT_FAILURE; } // 4. Spawn the process printf("Spawning /bin/sleep 1 as UID %d...\n", target_uid); status = posix_spawn(&pid, path, NULL, &attr, argv, environ); if (status == 0) { printf("Successfully spawned child with PID: %d\n", pid); // Wait for the child to finish (will take 63 seconds) if (waitpid(pid, &status, 0) != -1) { printf("Child process exited with status %d\n", WEXITSTATUS(status)); } else { perror("waitpid"); } } else { fprintf(stderr, "posix_spawn: %s\n", strerror(status)); } // 5. Clean up posix_spawnattr_destroy(&attr); return (status == 0) ? EXIT_SUCCESS : EXIT_FAILURE; } #include <cstdio> #include <cstdlib> #include <unistd.h> #include <sys/wait.h> #include <errno.h> #include <string.h> // This program demonstrates fork + setuid + exec behavior for ES framework bug report // 1. Parent forks // 2. Parent does setuid(501) // 3. Child waits with sleep syscall // 4. Child performs exec int main() { printf("Parent PID: %d, UID: %d, EUID: %d\n", getpid(), getuid(), geteuid()); pid_t pid = fork(); if (pid < 0) { // Fork failed perror("fork"); return EXIT_FAILURE; } if (pid == 0) { // Child process printf("Child PID: %d, UID: %d, EUID: %d\n", getpid(), getuid(), geteuid()); // Child waits for a bit with sleep syscall printf("Child sleeping for 2 seconds...\n"); sleep(2); // Child performs exec printf("Child executing child_exec...\n"); // Get the path to child_exec (same directory as this executable) char *const argv[] = {(char *)"/bin/sleep", (char *)"2", NULL}; // Try to exec child_exec from current directory first execv("/bin/sleep", argv); // If exec fails perror("execv"); return EXIT_FAILURE; } else { // Parent process printf("Parent forked child with PID: %d\n", pid); // Parent does setuid(501) printf("Parent calling setuid(501)...\n"); if (setuid(501) != 0) { perror("setuid"); // Continue anyway to observe behavior } printf("Parent after setuid - UID: %d, EUID: %d\n", getuid(), geteuid()); // Wait for child to finish int status; if (waitpid(pid, &status, 0) != -1) { if (WIFEXITED(status)) { printf("Child exited with status %d\n", WEXITSTATUS(status)); } else if (WIFSIGNALED(status)) { printf("Child killed by signal %d\n", WTERMSIG(status)); } } else { perror("waitpid"); } } return EXIT_SUCCESS; } posix_spawn.json fork_exec.json

Hi, I’m seeing a production issue on iOS 26+ that only affects some users. symptoms: It does NOT happen for all users. It happens for a subset of users on iOS 26+. If we write a value to Keychain and read it immediately in the same session, it succeeds. However, after terminating the app and relaunching, the value appears to be gone: SecItemCopyMatching returns errSecItemNotFound (-25300). Repro (as observed on affected devices): Launch app (iOS 26+). Save PIN data to Keychain using SecItemAdd (GenericPassword). Immediately read it using SecItemCopyMatching -> success. Terminate the app (swipe up / kill). Relaunch the app and read again using the same service -> returns -25300. Expected: The Keychain item should persist across app relaunch and remain readable (while the device is unlocked). Actual: After app relaunch, SecItemCopyMatching returns errSecItemNotFound (-25300) as if the item does not exist. Implementation details (ObjC): We store a “PIN” item like this (simplified): addItem: kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword kSecAttrService: <FIXED_STRING> kSecValueData: kSecAttrAccessControl: SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags(..., kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, 0, ...) readItem (SecItemCopyMatching): kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword kSecAttrService: <FIXED_STRING> kSecReturnData: YES (uses kSecUseOperationPrompt in our async method) Question: On iOS 26+, is there any known issue or new behavior where a successfully added GenericPassword item could later return errSecItemNotFound after app termination/relaunch for only some users/devices? What should we check to distinguish: OS behavior change/bug vs. entitlement/access-group differences (app vs extension, provisioning/team changes), device state/policies (MDM, passcode/biometrics changes), query attributes we should include to make the item stable across relaunch? Build / Dev Environment: macOS: 15.6.1 (24G90) Xcode: 26.2

I am working on implementing mTLS authentication in my iOS app (Apple Inhouse &amp; intune MAM managed app). The SCEP client certificate is deployed on the device via Intune MDM. When I try accessing the protected endpoint via SFSafariViewController/ASWebAuthenticationSession, the certificate picker appears and the request succeeds. However, from within my app (using URLSessionDelegate), the certificate is not found (errSecItemNotFound). The didReceive challenge method is called, but my SCEP certificate is not found in the app. The certificate is visible under Settings &gt; Device Management &gt; SCEP Certificate. How can I make my iOS app access and use the SCEP certificate (installed via Intune MDM) for mTLS requests? Do I need a special entitlement, keychain access group, or configuration in Intune or Developer account to allow my app to use the certificate? Here is the sample code I am using: final class KeychainCertificateDelegate: NSObject, URLSessionDelegate { func urlSession(_ session: URLSession, didReceive challenge: URLAuthenticationChallenge, completionHandler: @escaping (URLSession.AuthChallengeDisposition, URLCredential?) -&gt; Void) { guard challenge.protectionSpace.authenticationMethod == NSURLAuthenticationMethodClientCertificate else { completionHandler(.performDefaultHandling, nil) return } // Get the DNs the server will accept guard let expectedDNs = challenge.protectionSpace.distinguishedNames else { completionHandler(.cancelAuthenticationChallenge, nil) return } var identityRefs: CFTypeRef? = nil let err = SecItemCopyMatching([ kSecClass: kSecClassIdentity, kSecMatchLimit: kSecMatchLimitAll, kSecMatchIssuers: expectedDNs, kSecReturnRef: true, ] as NSDictionary, &amp;identityRefs) if err != errSecSuccess { completionHandler(.cancelAuthenticationChallenge, nil) return } guard let identities = identityRefs as? [SecIdentity], let identity = identities.first else { print("Identity list is empty") completionHandler(.cancelAuthenticationChallenge, nil) return } let credential = URLCredential(identity: identity, certificates: nil, persistence: .forSession) completionHandler(.useCredential, credential) } } func perform_mTLSRequest() { guard let url = URL(string: "https://sample.com/api/endpoint") else { return } var request = URLRequest(url: url) request.httpMethod = "POST" request.setValue("application/json", forHTTPHeaderField: "Accept") request.setValue("Bearer \(bearerToken)", forHTTPHeaderField: "Authorization") let delegate = KeychainCertificateDelegate() let session = URLSession(configuration: .ephemeral, delegate: delegate, delegateQueue: nil) let task = session.dataTask(with: request) { data, response, error in guard let httpResponse = response as? HTTPURLResponse, (200...299).contains(httpResponse.statusCode) else { print("Bad response") return } if let data = data { print(String(data: data, encoding: .utf8)!) } } task.resume() }

Our Goal: We are implementing a workflow for derived credentials. Our objective is to have a PIV/CAC derived credential (from Entrust), installed via the Intune MDM Company Portal app, and then use it within our (managed) app to generate digital signatures. Challenge: The Intune Company Portal installs these identities into the System Keychain. Because third-party apps are restricted from accessing private keys in the System Keychain, we are running into a roadblock. Our Question: 1) Is there an API that allows us to create a signature without us having to pass the private key itself, but instead just pass a handle/some reference to the private key and then the API can access the private key in the system keychain and create the signature under the hood. SecKeyCreateSignature is the API method that creates a signature but requires passing a private key. 2) If #1 is not feasible, is there a way to get access to system keychain to retrieve certs + private key for managed apps

"I am attempting to read and write data to an Office Group Container, and I am consistently prompted with the "App would like to access data from other apps" alert. How can I configure the application or environment to suppress this repeated permission prompt?"

Has anyone here encountered this? It's driving me crazy. It appears on launch. App Sandbox is enabled. The proper entitlement is selected (com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write) I believe this is causing an issue with app functionality for users on different machines. There is zero documentation across the internet on this problem. I am on macOS 26 beta. This error appears in both Xcode and Xcode-beta. Please help! Thank you, Logan

Summary I am investigating a change in macOS 26.1 (Tahoe) where plain (non-bundled) executables that request screen recording access no longer appear under: System Settings → Privacy & Security → Screen & System Audio Recording This behavior differs from macOS Sequoia, where these executables did appear in the list and could be managed through the UI. Tahoe still prompts for permission and still allows the executable to capture the screen once permission is granted, but the executable never shows up in the UI list. This breaks user expectations and removes UI-based permission management. To confirm the behavior, I created a small reproduction project with both: a plain executable, and an identical executable packaged inside an .app bundle. Only the bundled version appears in System Settings. Observed Behaviour 1. Plain Executable (from my reproduction project) When running a plain executable that captures the screen: macOS displays the normal screen-recording permission prompt. Before granting permission: screenshots show only the desktop background. After granting permission: screenshots capture the full display. The executable does not appear under “Screen & System Audio Recording”. Even when permission is granted manually (e.g., dragging the executable into the pane), the executable still does not appear, which prevents the user from modifying or revoking the permission through the UI. If the executable is launched from inside another app (e.g., VS Code, Terminal), the parent app appears in the list instead, not the executable itself. 2. Bundled App Version (from the reproduction project) I packaged the same code into a simple .app bundle (ScreenCaptureApp.app). When running the app: The same permission prompt appears. Pre-permission screenshots show the desktop background. Post-permission screenshots capture the full display. The app does appear under “Screen & System Audio Recording”. This bundle uses the same underlying executable — the only difference is packaging. Hypothesis macOS 26.1 (Tahoe) appears to require app bundles for an item to be shown in the Screen Recording privacy UI. Plain executables: still request and receive permission, still function correctly after permission is granted, but do not appear in the System Settings list. This may be an intentional change, undocumented behavior, or a regression. Reproduction Project The reproduction project includes: screen_capture.go A simple Go program that captures screenshots in a loop. screen_capture_executable Plain executable built from the Go source. ScreenCaptureApp.app/ App bundle containing the same executable. build.sh Builds both the plain executable and the app bundle. Permission reset and TCC testing scripts. The project demonstrates the behavior consistently. Steps to Reproduce Plain Executable Build: ./build.sh Reset screen capture permissions: sudo tccutil reset ScreenCapture Run: ./screen_capture_executable Before granting: screenshots show desktop only. Grant permission when prompted. After granting: full screenshots. Executable does not appear in “Screen & System Audio Recording”. Bundled App Build (if not already built): ./build.sh Reset permissions (optional): sudo tccutil reset ScreenCapture Run: open ScreenCaptureApp.app Before granting: screenshots show desktop. After granting: full screenshots. App bundle appears in the System Settings list. Additional Check I also tested launching the plain executable as a child process of another executable, similar to how some software architectures work. Result: Permission prompt appears Permission can be granted Executable still does not appear in the UI, even though TCC tracks it internally → consistent with the plain-executable behaviour. This reinforces that only app bundles are listed. Questions for Apple Is the removal of plain executables from “Screen & System Audio Recording” an intentional change in macOS Tahoe? If so, does Apple now require all screen-recording capable binaries to be packaged as .app bundles for the UI to display them? Is there a supported method for making a plain executable (launched by a parent process) appear in the list? If this is not intentional, what is the recommended path for reporting this as a regression? Files Unfortunately, I have discovered the zip file that contains my reproduction project can't be directly uploaded here. Here is a Google Drive link instead: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sXsr3Q0g6_UzlOIL54P5wbS7yBkpMJ7A/view?usp=sharing Thank you for taking the time to review this. Any insight into whether this change is intentional or a regression would be very helpful.

I am not very well versed in this area, so I would appreciate some guidance on what should be enabled or disabled. My app is an AppKit app. I have read the documentation and watched the video, but I find it hard to understand. When I added the Enhanced Security capability in Xcode, the following options were enabled automatically: Memory Safety Enable Enhanced Security Typed Allocator Runtime Protections Enable Additional Runtime Platform Restrictions Authenticate Pointers Enable Read-only Platform Memory The following options were disabled by default: Memory Safety Enable Hardware Memory Tagging Memory Tag Pure Data Prevent Receiving Tagged Memory Enable Soft Mode for Memory Tagging Should I enable these options? Is there anything I should consider disabling?

I am developing a macOS application (targeting macOS 13 and later) that is non-sandboxed and needs to install and trust a root certificate by adding it to the System keychain programmatically. I’m fine with prompting the user for admin privileges or password, if needed. So far, I have attempted to execute the following command programmatically from both: A user-level process A root-level process sudo security add-trusted-cert -d -r trustRoot -k /Library/Keychains/System.keychain /path/to/cert.pem While the certificate does get installed, it does not appear as trusted in the Keychain Access app. One more point: The app is not distributed via MDM. App will be distributed out side the app store. Questions: What is the correct way to programmatically install and trust a root certificate in the System keychain? Does this require additional entitlements, signing, or profile configurations? Is it possible outside of MDM management? Any guidance or working samples would be greatly appreciated.

Dear Apple Developer Technical Support, We are currently following the official Apple documentation “TN3159: Migrating Sign in with Apple users for an app transfer” to carry out a Sign in with Apple user migration after successfully transferring several apps to a new developer account. Here is a summary of our situation: Under the original Apple developer account, we had five apps using Sign in with Apple, grouped under a shared primary app using App Grouping. Recently, we transferred three of these apps to our new Apple developer account via App Store Connect. After the transfer, these three apps are no longer associated with the original primary App ID. We reconfigured individual Services IDs for each app in the new account and enabled Sign in with Apple for each. More than 24 hours have passed since the app transfer was completed. Now we are attempting to follow the migration process to restore user access via the user.migration flow. Specifically, we are using the following script to request an Apple access token: url = "https://appleid.apple.com/auth/token" headers = {"Content-Type": "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"} data = { "grant_type": "client_credentials", "scope": "user.migration", "client_id": "com.game.friends.ios.toptop.sea", # New Services ID in the new account "client_secret": "<JWT signed with new p8 key>" } response = requests.post(url, headers=headers, data=data) However, the API response consistently returns: { "error": "invalid_client" } We have verified that the following configurations are correct: The client_secret is generated using the p8 key from the new account, signed with ES256 and correct key_id, team_id, and client_id. The client_id corresponds to the Services ID created in the new account and properly associated with the migrated app. The scope is set to user.migration. The JWT payload contains correct iss, sub, and aud values as per Apple documentation. The app has been fully transferred and reconfigured more than 24 hours ago. Problem Summary & Request for Support: According to Apple’s official documentation: “After an app is transferred, Apple updates the Sign in with Apple configuration in the background. This can take up to 24 hours. During this time, attempts to authenticate users or validate tokens may fail.” However, we are still consistently receiving invalid_client errors after the 24-hour waiting period. We suspect one of the following issues: The transferred apps may still be partially associated with the original App Grouping or primary App ID. Some Sign in with Apple configuration in Apple’s backend may not have been fully updated after the transfer. Or the Services ID is not yet fully operational for the transferred apps in the new account. We kindly request your assistance to: Verify whether the transferred apps have been completely detached from the original App Grouping and primary App ID. Confirm whether the new Services IDs under the new account are fully functional and eligible for Sign in with Apple with user.migration scope. Help identify any remaining configuration or migration issues that may cause the invalid_client error. If necessary, assist in manually ungrouping or clearing any residual App Grouping relationships affecting the new environment. We have also generated and retained the original transfer_sub identifiers and are fully prepared to complete the sub mapping once the user.migration flow becomes functional. Thank you very much for your time and support!