
                # Interation 0

                ## Task Info
                You are investigating a biological system where all species are observable. Your goal is to discover the missing reactions. You do not need to add new species.


                ## Incomplete SBML Model. You can assess it as input_sbml_string.

                <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<sbml xmlns="http://www.sbml.org/sbml/level2/version4" level="2" version="4">
  <model id="id_8hn8">
    <listOfUnitDefinitions>
      <unitDefinition id="id_cm39">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="litre" exponent="1" scale="-3" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
      <unitDefinition id="id_g8kt">
        <listOfUnits>
          <unit kind="mole" exponent="1" scale="-3" multiplier="1"/>
        </listOfUnits>
      </unitDefinition>
    </listOfUnitDefinitions>
    <listOfCompartments>
      <compartment id="id_6msh" spatialDimensions="3" size="1" constant="true"/>
    </listOfCompartments>
    <listOfSpecies>
      <species id="id_j5qx" compartment="id_6msh" initialConcentration="0.2" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
      <species id="id_o483" compartment="id_6msh" initialConcentration="0.1" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
      <species id="id_lti5" compartment="id_6msh" initialConcentration="0.55" boundaryCondition="false" constant="false"/>
    </listOfSpecies>
  </model>
</sbml>


                ## Max iterations
                20

                Format your response according to the instructions in the system message.
                
## Thoughts
The initial SBML model defines three species (id_j5qx, id_o483, id_lti5) and their initial concentrations, but no reactions.
My first step is to observe the system's behavior under default conditions. This will provide data on how the concentrations of these species change over time.
After obtaining the experimental data, I will compare it to a simulation of the current model (which will show no change in concentrations as there are no reactions). This comparison will help me infer potential reactions.

## Action

### Experiment
```json
{
   "action": "observe",
   "meta_data": {}
}
```
# Observation

## Experiment Result
Experiment ID: iteration_0
Your requested experiment has finished. The details results are saved as a dataframe in experiment_history[iteration_0]

Total size: 2797 rows × 4 columns. 

Below shows a subset of the table for your convenience. You should access experiment_history[iteration_0] for the full data

Time   id_j5qx  id_o483  id_lti5
0  2.00e-01 1.00e-01 5.50e-01
...
6.12e+00  1.91e-01 3.81e-02 8.69e-01
...
1.22e+01  1.83e-01 1.49e-02 9.60e-01
...
1.83e+01  1.75e-01 6.53e-03 9.83e-01
...
2.45e+01  1.67e-01 3.26e-03 9.92e-01
...
3.06e+01  1.60e-01 1.87e-03 9.95e-01
...
3.67e+01  1.53e-01 1.22e-03 9.97e-01
...
4.28e+01  1.46e-01 9.04e-04 9.98e-01
...
4.89e+01  1.40e-01 7.58e-04 9.98e-01
...
5.50e+01  1.33e-01 7.15e-04 9.99e-01
...
6.12e+01  1.27e-01 7.53e-04 9.99e-01
...
6.73e+01  1.22e-01 8.84e-04 9.98e-01
...
7.34e+01  1.16e-01 1.15e-03 9.98e-01
...
7.95e+01  1.11e-01 1.65e-03 9.97e-01
...
8.56e+01  1.06e-01 2.60e-03 9.96e-01
...
9.17e+01  1.02e-01 4.48e-03 9.94e-01
...
9.79e+01  9.71e-02 8.40e-03 9.90e-01
...
1.04e+02  9.28e-02 1.71e-02 9.83e-01
...
1.10e+02  8.87e-02 3.74e-02 9.73e-01
...
1.16e+02  8.49e-02 8.57e-02 9.62e-01
...
1.22e+02  8.17e-02 1.93e-01 9.53e-01
...
1.28e+02  7.99e-02 3.65e-01 9.48e-01
...
1.35e+02  8.00e-02 5.13e-01 9.45e-01
...
1.41e+02  8.13e-02 5.76e-01 9.45e-01
...
1.47e+02  8.30e-02 5.90e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.53e+02  8.48e-02 5.88e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.59e+02  8.65e-02 5.80e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.65e+02  8.82e-02 5.72e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.71e+02  8.99e-02 5.63e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.77e+02  9.14e-02 5.54e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.83e+02  9.28e-02 5.46e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.90e+02  9.42e-02 5.38e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.96e+02  9.55e-02 5.30e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.02e+02  9.67e-02 5.23e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.08e+02  9.78e-02 5.16e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.14e+02  9.88e-02 5.09e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.20e+02  9.97e-02 5.03e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.26e+02  1.01e-01 4.97e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.32e+02  1.01e-01 4.92e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.39e+02  1.02e-01 4.87e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.45e+02  1.03e-01 4.82e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.51e+02  1.03e-01 4.78e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.57e+02  1.04e-01 4.74e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.63e+02  1.04e-01 4.70e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.69e+02  1.05e-01 4.67e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.75e+02  1.05e-01 4.64e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.81e+02  1.06e-01 4.61e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.87e+02  1.06e-01 4.59e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.94e+02  1.06e-01 4.56e-01 9.45e-01
...
3.00e+02  1.06e-01 4.54e-01 9.45e-01

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 20/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. ()

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 1
## Thoughts

The experimental data shows complex dynamics:
- `id_j5qx`: Initial decrease, then slight increase, settling around 0.106.
- `id_o483`: Initial sharp decrease (almost to zero), then significant increase, settling around 0.454.
- `id_lti5`: Initial increase, then slight decrease, settling around 0.945.

The initial phase (decrease of `id_j5qx` and `id_o483`, increase of `id_lti5`) suggests a reaction like `id_j5qx + id_o483 -> id_lti5`.
The later phase (increase of `id_j5qx` and `id_o483`, decrease of `id_lti5`) suggests a reversal of this reaction or other reactions producing `id_j5qx` and `id_o483` from `id_lti5`.
A reversible reaction `id_j5qx + id_o483 <=> id_lti5` seems like a good first hypothesis.

Let S1 = `id_j5qx`, S2 = `id_o483`, S3 = `id_lti5`.
The reaction is S1 + S2 <=> S3.
The rate law would be `kf * [S1] * [S2] - kr * [S3]`.

At equilibrium (approx. T=300 from data):
[S1]eq ≈ 0.106
[S2]eq ≈ 0.454
[S3]eq ≈ 0.945

At equilibrium, net rate is zero: `kf * [S1]eq * [S2]eq = kr * [S3]eq`.
`kf * (0.106) * (0.454) = kr * (0.945)`
`kf * 0.048124 = kr * 0.945`
`K_eq = kf / kr = 0.945 / 0.048124 ≈ 19.63`

I will try `kf = 20` and `kr = 1` as initial parameter guesses.

My plan is:
1.  Load the experimental data.
2.  Modify the input SBML string to include the reversible reaction `id_j5qx + id_o483 <=> id_lti5`.
    *   Species: `id_j5qx` (S1), `id_o483` (S2), `id_lti5` (S3)
    *   Reaction: `S1 + S2 <=> S3`
    *   Reactants: S1 (stoichiometry 1), S2 (stoichiometry 1)
    *   Product: S3 (stoichiometry 1)
    *   Kinetic law: `kf * S1 * S2 - kr * S3`
    *   Parameters: `kf = 20`, `kr = 1`
3.  Simulate the modified SBML model.
4.  Compare the simulation results with the experimental data, possibly by plotting.

I will use `libsbml` to modify the SBML model. Since the input is L2V4, I will try to adhere to L2V4 specifications.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

# Access experimental data
exp_data_df = experiment_history['iteration_0']

# Plot experimental data to visualize
plt.figure(figsize=(10, 6))
plt.plot(exp_data_df['Time'], exp_data_df['id_j5qx'], label='id_j5qx (Experimental)')
plt.plot(exp_data_df['Time'], exp_data_df['id_o483'], label='id_o483 (Experimental)')
plt.plot(exp_data_df['Time'], exp_data_df['id_lti5'], label='id_lti5 (Experimental)')
plt.xlabel('Time')
plt.ylabel('Concentration')
plt.title('Experimental Data')
plt.legend()
plt.grid(True)
plt.savefig("experimental_data_plot.png") # Save plot
print("Experimental data plot saved as experimental_data_plot.png")
# plt.show() # Cannot use plt.show() in this environment

# Modify the SBML model
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Create a new reaction
reaction = model.createReaction()
reaction.setId("R1")
reaction.setReversible(True) # Set reaction as reversible

# Add reactants
reactant1 = reaction.createReactant()
reactant1.setSpecies("id_j5qx")
reactant1.setStoichiometry(1.0)

reactant2 = reaction.createReactant()
reactant2.setSpecies("id_o483")
reactant2.setStoichiometry(1.0)

# Add product
product1 = reaction.createProduct()
product1.setSpecies("id_lti5")
product1.setStoichiometry(1.0)

# Create kinetic law
kinetic_law = reaction.createKineticLaw()

# Add parameters for kf and kr
kf_param = kinetic_law.createParameter()
kf_param.setId("kf")
kf_param.setValue(20.0) # Initial guess for kf

kr_param = kinetic_law.createParameter()
kr_param.setId("kr")
kr_param.setValue(1.0)  # Initial guess for kr

# Set the formula for the kinetic law
# Formula: kf * id_j5qx * id_o483 - kr * id_lti5
# Note: species IDs are used directly in the formula
formula = "kf * id_j5qx * id_o483 - kr * id_lti5"
kinetic_law.setFormula(formula)

# Write the updated SBML to a string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml_string = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)
shared_variables.add("model_v1_sbml", updated_sbml_string) # Save for potential submission or next step
print("Model v1 (reversible reaction S1+S2 <=> S3) created.")
# print(updated_sbml_string) # Avoid printing large string

# Simulate the updated model
sim_data_df = simulate(updated_sbml_string)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v1_df", sim_data_df) # Save for next step if needed

# Plot simulation results vs experimental data
plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))

# Plot experimental data
plt.plot(exp_data_df['Time'], exp_data_df['id_j5qx'], 'r--', label='id_j5qx (Exp)', alpha=0.7)
plt.plot(exp_data_df['Time'], exp_data_df['id_o483'], 'g--', label='id_o483 (Exp)', alpha=0.7)
plt.plot(exp_data_df['Time'], exp_data_df['id_lti5'], 'b--', label='id_lti5 (Exp)', alpha=0.7)

# Plot simulation data
plt.plot(sim_data_df['Time'], sim_data_df['id_j5qx'], 'r-', label='id_j5qx (Sim)')
plt.plot(sim_data_df['Time'], sim_data_df['id_o483'], 'g-', label='id_o483 (Sim)')
plt.plot(sim_data_df['Time'], sim_data_df['id_lti5'], 'b-', label='id_lti5 (Sim)')

plt.xlabel('Time')
plt.ylabel('Concentration')
plt.title('Comparison of Experimental Data and Simulation (Model v1)')
plt.legend()
plt.grid(True)
plt.savefig("comparison_plot_v1.png")
print("Comparison plot saved as comparison_plot_v1.png")

# Print some data points for comparison
print("\nExperimental Data (tail):")
print(exp_data_df.tail())
print("\nSimulation Data (tail):")
print(sim_data_df.tail())

# Calculate equilibrium values from simulation
sim_eq_s1 = sim_data_df['id_j5qx'].iloc[-1]
sim_eq_s2 = sim_data_df['id_o483'].iloc[-1]
sim_eq_s3 = sim_data_df['id_lti5'].iloc[-1]

print(f"\nSimulated equilibrium values: id_j5qx={sim_eq_s1:.3f}, id_o483={sim_eq_s2:.3f}, id_lti5={sim_eq_s3:.3f}")

exp_eq_s1 = exp_data_df['id_j5qx'].iloc[-1]
exp_eq_s2 = exp_data_df['id_o483'].iloc[-1]
exp_eq_s3 = exp_data_df['id_lti5'].iloc[-1]
print(f"Experimental equilibrium values: id_j5qx={exp_eq_s1:.3f}, id_o483={exp_eq_s2:.3f}, id_lti5={exp_eq_s3:.3f}")

```
# Observation

## Code Stderror
 Unauthorized modules matplotlib detected. Only these modules are allowed: numpy, pandas, libsbml, math, scipy, jax, sklearn, io, traceback.

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 19/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. ()

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 2
## Thoughts
The previous attempt to plot using `matplotlib` failed because it's not an allowed library. I need to remove the plotting code and rely on printing numerical data or summary statistics to compare the simulation with experimental data.

The core logic of adding the reversible reaction `id_j5qx + id_o483 <=> id_lti5` with `kf=20` and `kr=1` should still be tested.

My plan is:
1.  Remove all `matplotlib` related code.
2.  Keep the SBML modification part.
3.  Simulate the modified model.
4.  Print the head and tail of both experimental and simulation dataframes for comparison.
5.  Print the equilibrium values from both experimental and simulation data.

This will allow me to assess if the current hypothesis (one reversible reaction) and the chosen parameters are a reasonable starting point. If the equilibrium values are close, then the `kf/kr` ratio is likely good. If the dynamics are off, then `kf` and `kr` magnitudes or the model structure might need adjustment.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml
import pandas as pd

# Access experimental data
exp_data_df = experiment_history['iteration_0']
print("Experimental Data (head):")
print(exp_data_df.head())
print("\nExperimental Data (tail):")
print(exp_data_df.tail())

# Modify the SBML model
sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Check if reaction R1 already exists, if so, remove it to avoid duplication
existing_reaction = model.getReaction("R1")
if existing_reaction:
    model.removeReaction("R1")
    print("Removed existing reaction R1 to redefine it.")

# Create a new reaction
reaction = model.createReaction()
reaction.setId("R1")
reaction.setReversible(True) # Set reaction as reversible

# Add reactants
reactant1 = reaction.createReactant()
reactant1.setSpecies("id_j5qx")
reactant1.setStoichiometry(1.0)

reactant2 = reaction.createReactant()
reactant2.setSpecies("id_o483")
reactant2.setStoichiometry(1.0)

# Add product
product1 = reaction.createProduct()
product1.setSpecies("id_lti5")
product1.setStoichiometry(1.0)

# Create kinetic law
kinetic_law = reaction.createKineticLaw()

# Add parameters for kf and kr
kf_param = kinetic_law.createParameter()
kf_param.setId("kf")
kf_param.setValue(20.0) # Initial guess for kf

kr_param = kinetic_law.createParameter()
kr_param.setId("kr")
kr_param.setValue(1.0)  # Initial guess for kr

# Set the formula for the kinetic law
# Formula: kf * id_j5qx * id_o483 - kr * id_lti5
formula = "kf * id_j5qx * id_o483 - kr * id_lti5"
kinetic_law.setFormula(formula)

# Write the updated SBML to a string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
updated_sbml_string_v1 = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)
shared_variables.add("model_v1_sbml", updated_sbml_string_v1)
print("\nModel v1 (reversible reaction S1+S2 <=> S3 with kf=20, kr=1) created.")

# Simulate the updated model
sim_data_df_v1 = simulate(updated_sbml_string_v1)
shared_variables.add("sim_data_v1_df", sim_data_df_v1)

print("\nSimulation Data v1 (head):")
print(sim_data_df_v1.head())
print("\nSimulation Data v1 (tail):")
print(sim_data_df_v1.tail())

# Calculate and print equilibrium values for comparison
sim_eq_s1 = sim_data_df_v1['id_j5qx'].iloc[-1]
sim_eq_s2 = sim_data_df_v1['id_o483'].iloc[-1]
sim_eq_s3 = sim_data_df_v1['id_lti5'].iloc[-1]

print(f"\nSimulated equilibrium values (Model v1): id_j5qx={sim_eq_s1:.4f}, id_o483={sim_eq_s2:.4f}, id_lti5={sim_eq_s3:.4f}")

exp_eq_s1 = exp_data_df['id_j5qx'].iloc[-1]
exp_eq_s2 = exp_data_df['id_o483'].iloc[-1]
exp_eq_s3 = exp_data_df['id_lti5'].iloc[-1]
print(f"Experimental equilibrium values: id_j5qx={exp_eq_s1:.4f}, id_o483={exp_eq_s2:.4f}, id_lti5={exp_eq_s3:.4f}")

# Calculate sum of squared errors for equilibrium values
sse_eq = ((sim_eq_s1 - exp_eq_s1)**2 +
          (sim_eq_s2 - exp_eq_s2)**2 +
          (sim_eq_s3 - exp_eq_s3)**2)
print(f"Sum of Squared Errors for equilibrium values: {sse_eq:.6f}")

```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Experimental Data (head):
    id_j5qx   id_o483   id_lti5      Time
0  0.200000  0.100000  0.550000  0.000000
1  0.199855  0.098384  0.557886  0.107296
2  0.199710  0.096791  0.565730  0.214592
3  0.199564  0.095220  0.573529  0.321888
4  0.199418  0.093672  0.581279  0.429185

Experimental Data (tail):
       id_j5qx   id_o483   id_lti5        Time
2792  0.106363  0.454383  0.945028  299.570815
2793  0.106367  0.454350  0.945028  299.678112
2794  0.106372  0.454317  0.945029  299.785408
2795  0.106376  0.454284  0.945029  299.892704
2796  0.106380  0.454252  0.945029  300.000000

Model v1 (reversible reaction S1+S2 <=> S3 with kf=20, kr=1) created.

Simulation Data v1 (head):
    id_j5qx   id_o483   id_lti5      Time
0  0.200000  0.100000  0.550000  0.000000
1  0.211228  0.111228  0.538772  0.107296
2  0.216299  0.116299  0.533701  0.214592
3  0.218535  0.118535  0.531465  0.321888
4  0.219510  0.119510  0.530490  0.429185

Simulation Data v1 (tail):
       id_j5qx   id_o483   id_lti5        Time
2792  0.220256  0.120256  0.529744  299.570815
2793  0.220256  0.120256  0.529744  299.678112
2794  0.220256  0.120256  0.529744  299.785408
2795  0.220256  0.120256  0.529744  299.892704
2796  0.220256  0.120256  0.529744  300.000000

Simulated equilibrium values (Model v1): id_j5qx=0.2203, id_o483=0.1203, id_lti5=0.5297
Experimental equilibrium values: id_j5qx=0.1064, id_o483=0.4543, id_lti5=0.9450
Sum of Squared Errors for equilibrium values: 0.296983

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 18/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (model_v1_sbml, sim_data_v1_df)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 3
## Thoughts

The simulation results from Model v1 (S1+S2 <=> S3, kf=20, kr=1) are quite different from the experimental data.
Experimental equilibrium: S1=0.1064, S2=0.4543, S3=0.9450
Simulated equilibrium (v1): S1=0.2203, S2=0.1203, S3=0.5297

The SSE for equilibrium values is high (0.297).
The initial dynamics are also incorrect. Experimentally, S1 and S2 decrease initially, and S3 increases. In the simulation, S1 and S2 *increase* initially, and S3 *decreases*. This means the net reaction direction is initially backwards in the simulation (S3 -> S1 + S2), while it should be forwards (S1 + S2 -> S3).

The initial condition is: S1=0.2, S2=0.1, S3=0.55.
For the reaction S1 + S2 <=> S3 with rate `kf * S1 * S2 - kr * S3`:
Initial forward rate component: `kf * 0.2 * 0.1 = kf * 0.02`
Initial backward rate component: `kr * 0.55`

In Model v1 (kf=20, kr=1):
Initial forward rate: `20 * 0.02 = 0.4`
Initial backward rate: `1 * 0.55 = 0.55`
Since backward rate (0.55) > forward rate (0.4), the net reaction is S3 -> S1 + S2, which is opposite to what's observed experimentally.

To match the initial experimental trend (S1, S2 decrease; S3 increases), we need `kf * S1_initial * S2_initial > kr * S3_initial`.
`kf * 0.2 * 0.1 > kr * 0.55`
`kf * 0.02 > kr * 0.55`
`kf / kr > 0.55 / 0.02`
`kf / kr > 27.5`

Let's re-evaluate the equilibrium constant from experimental data:
`K_eq_exp = [S3]eq / ([S1]eq * [S2]eq) = 0.9450 / (0.1064 * 0.4543) = 0.9450 / 0.04833572 ≈ 19.55`

So, we need `kf/kr` to be around 19.55 for the equilibrium to match, but `kf/kr` to be greater than 27.5 for the initial direction to match. This is a contradiction if only this single reversible reaction is present.

This suggests that the model is more complex than a single reversible reaction S1 + S2 <=> S3.
The experimental data shows S2 initially drops very low (almost to zero around T=30-50) before rising again. S1 also drops, but not as drastically. S3 rises, then slightly falls.

Let's consider the initial phase: S1 and S2 are consumed, S3 is produced.
`id_j5qx` (S1): 0.2 -> ~0.13 (at T=55)
`id_o483` (S2): 0.1 -> ~0.0007 (at T=55)
`id_lti5` (S3): 0.55 -> ~0.999 (at T=55)

This looks like S2 might be a limiting reactant in an initial reaction.
Perhaps there are two reactions:
1.  An irreversible (or strongly forward-biased) reaction consuming S1 and S2 to produce S3: `S1 + S2 -> S3` (R1)
2.  Another reaction that regenerates S2 (and possibly S1) from S3, or S3 decomposes, or S3 converts to S2.

If S2 drops to near zero and then recovers, S3 must be involved in regenerating S2.
Possibility 1: `S1 + S2 -> S3` (k1) and `S3 -> S2 + X` (k2) or `S3 -> S2` (k2) (if S1 is also regenerated or X is S1).
If `S3 -> S1 + S2` (k2_rev), this is the reversible reaction we tried. The issue was the initial direction and the equilibrium.

Let's re-examine the initial rates.
S1 decreases, S2 decreases, S3 increases.
This strongly supports `S1 + S2 -> S3` as a dominant initial reaction.
Let's call this R_fwd: `S1 + S2 -> S3` with rate `k_fwd * S1 * S2`.

The later phase (after T ~ 100):
S1 increases slightly (0.09 -> 0.106)
S2 increases significantly (0.008 -> 0.454)
S3 decreases slightly (0.99 -> 0.945)

This suggests S3 is being consumed to produce S1 and S2.
So, `S3 -> S1 + S2` (R_rev) with rate `k_rev * S3`.
This is exactly the reversible reaction `S1 + S2 <=> S3`.

The problem might be with the parameter values `kf=20, kr=1`.
We need `kf * 0.02 > kr * 0.55` for initial direction.
And `kf/kr ≈ 19.55` for equilibrium.

If `kf/kr = 19.55`, then `kf = 19.55 * kr`.
Substitute into the inequality: `(19.55 * kr) * 0.02 > kr * 0.55`
`0.391 * kr > 0.55 * kr`
This inequality `0.391 > 0.55` is false.

This confirms that a simple reversible reaction `S1 + S2 <=> S3` with mass action kinetics cannot explain both the initial direction of change AND the final equilibrium state simultaneously with the given initial concentrations.

What could be wrong?
1.  The reaction stoichiometry is different.
2.  The kinetic laws are not simple mass action.
3.  There are other reactions.

Let's assume the stoichiometry S1+S2 <=> S3 is correct for now.
What if the kinetic law is more complex? E.g., Michaelis-Menten, Hill kinetics. This is usually for enzyme-catalyzed reactions. The problem statement doesn't suggest enzymes.

Let's consider other reactions.
The initial sharp drop in S2, while S1 drops less sharply, is interesting.
What if S2 is consumed in another reaction as well? Or S1 is produced by another source?

Let's re-evaluate the initial changes:
Time 0: S1=0.2, S2=0.1, S3=0.55
Time ~0.1: S1=0.1998 (-0.0002), S2=0.0983 (-0.0017), S3=0.5578 (+0.0078)
The change in S3 is much larger than S1 or S2 individually.
Change ratios: dS1/dt ~ -k, dS2/dt ~ -k, dS3/dt ~ +k for S1+S2->S3.
Here, |dS2| > |dS1|. This is not consistent with 1:1 stoichiometry for S1 and S2 consumption in a single reaction S1+S2 -> S3.
Specifically, from T=0 to T=0.107:
delta_S1 = 0.199855 - 0.2 = -0.000145
delta_S2 = 0.098384 - 0.1 = -0.001616
delta_S3 = 0.557886 - 0.55 = +0.007886

This is very strange. If S1 + S2 -> S3, then consumption of S1 and S2 should be equal.
If S1 + S2 -> S3, then -delta_S1 = -delta_S2 = delta_S3.
Here, -delta_S1 != -delta_S2. And delta_S3 is much larger than either.

This implies the stoichiometry is not 1:1:1 or there are multiple reactions active from the start.

Let's assume the species are S1=`id_j5qx`, S2=`id_o483`, S3=`id_lti5`.
The observation `|delta_S2| > |delta_S1|` initially suggests S2 might be consumed with a higher stoichiometric coefficient or in an additional reaction not involving S1.
The observation `delta_S3 > |-delta_S1|` and `delta_S3 > |-delta_S2|` is also problematic for a simple S1+S2 -> S3.

Could it be something like:
R1: `A * S1 + B * S2 -> C * S3`
If A=1, B=2, C=1: `S1 + 2*S2 -> S3`
Then consumption rate of S2 would be twice that of S1.
-delta_S1 / 1 = -delta_S2 / 2 = delta_S3 / 1
So, delta_S2 = 2 * delta_S1.
And delta_S3 = -delta_S1.

Let's check the initial changes again:
delta_S1 = -0.000145
delta_S2 = -0.001616
delta_S3 = +0.007886

If `S1 + 2*S2 -> S3`:
We expect delta_S2 ≈ 2 * delta_S1. Here, -0.001616 is about 11 times -0.000145. So, not 1:2.
We expect delta_S3 ≈ -delta_S1. Here, 0.007886 is much larger than 0.000145.

This simple stoichiometric adjustment doesn't seem to fit the magnitude of S3 production.
The large production of S3 relative to consumption of S1/S2 is the most puzzling part.
Is there a source of S3, or are S1/S2 actually catalysts for S3 formation from something else (not possible as no other species)?
Or, are the initial concentrations in the SBML model not the true starting point of the *data*?
The data starts at T=0 with S1=0.2, S2=0.1, S3=0.55. These match the SBML initial concentrations.

What if S3 is produced from S1 *or* S2 independently?
R1: `S1 -> S3` (k1)
R2: `S2 -> S3` (k2)
This would mean S1 and S2 decrease, S3 increases.
If R1: `S1 -> S3`, then -delta_S1 = delta_S3_from_R1
If R2: `S2 -> S3`, then -delta_S2 = delta_S3_from_R2
Total delta_S3 = delta_S3_from_R1 + delta_S3_from_R2 = -delta_S1 - delta_S2.
Using initial deltas:
delta_S3 = 0.007886
-delta_S1 - delta_S2 = -(-0.000145) - (-0.001616) = 0.000145 + 0.001616 = 0.001761.
This (0.001761) is much smaller than 0.007886. So this isn't it.

The amount of S3 being produced is significantly more than the amount of S1 and S2 being consumed (if we assume 1:1 conversion).
This can only happen if the stoichiometry for S3 production is high.
E.g., `S1 -> n*S3` or `S2 -> m*S3` or `S1+S2 -> p*S3`.

Let's try `S1 + S2 -> C * S3`.
Then -delta_S1 = -delta_S2 = delta_S3 / C.
So C = delta_S3 / (-delta_S1).
C1 = 0.007886 / 0.000145 ≈ 54
C2 = 0.007886 / 0.001616 ≈ 4.88
Since C1 and C2 are very different, `S1+S2 -> C*S3` is not the sole reaction with 1:1 consumption of S1 and S2.

What if the reactions are:
R1: `S1 -> C1 * S3`
R2: `S2 -> C2 * S3`
This is unlikely as S1 and S2 often interact.

Let's reconsider the initial observation: `id_j5qx` (S1) decreases, `id_o483` (S2) decreases, `id_lti5` (S3) increases.
This pattern holds for a while.
Then S2 starts to increase (around T=80-90), S1 also starts to increase (around T=120, but it's a very shallow minimum). S3 peaks around T=50-60 and then decreases.

This pattern (S1, S2 down, S3 up, then S3 down, S1, S2 up) is classic for a reversible reaction `A+B <=> C`.
The stoichiometric puzzle of initial rates is the main issue.
-delta_S1 = -0.000145
-delta_S2 = -0.001616
delta_S3 = +0.007886

Could the simulation time step for `simulate()` be different from the experimental data's time points? The `simulate` function returns data at the same time points as the first experiment provided.
The first data point after T=0 is T=0.107296. This is a small step.

Perhaps there's a very fast initial reaction that consumes S2 and produces S3, and another slower one consuming S1 and S2 to S3.
R1: `S2 -> S3` (fast) rate `k1 * S2`
R2: `S1 + S2 -> S3` (slower) rate `k2 * S1 * S2`
And then a reverse reaction:
R3: `S3 -> S1 + S2` (even slower) rate `k3 * S3`

Let's test R1: `S2 -> S3` (k1), R2: `S1 -> S3` (k2), R3: `S3 -> S1 + S2` (k3)
This is getting complicated quickly.

Let's go back to the simplest hypothesis that could explain the *directions* of change:
1. Forward reaction: `id_j5qx + id_o483 -> id_lti5` (Rate: `kf * id_j5qx * id_o483`)
2. Reverse reaction: `id_lti5 -> id_j5qx + id_o483` (Rate: `kr * id_lti5`)

The problem was `kf * 0.02 > kr * 0.55` (for initial direction) and `kf/kr ≈ 19.55` (for equilibrium).
These are contradictory: `19.55 * 0.02 > 0.55` => `0.391 > 0.55` (False).

What if the initial concentrations in the experiment are not *exactly* what the system starts with for the simulation engine, or there's a slight delay? Unlikely. Assume data is gold.

Could the issue be that `id_o483` (S2) is consumed much faster initially?
What if the forward reaction is `id_j5qx + N * id_o483 -> M * id_lti5`?
And reverse `M * id_lti5 -> id_j5qx + N * id_o483`?

Let's look at the amounts changed to reach near equilibrium:
S1_init = 0.2, S1_eq = 0.1064 => delta_S1 = -0.0936
S2_init = 0.1, S2_eq = 0.4543 => delta_S2 = +0.3543  (S2 *increases* overall!)
S3_init = 0.55, S3_eq = 0.9450 => delta_S3 = +0.3950

This is a major insight! S2 *increases* from its initial concentration to its equilibrium concentration.
Initial S2 = 0.1. It drops to near zero (e.g., 0.0007 at T=55), then rises to 0.4543.
So, S2 is initially consumed, then produced.
S1 is initially consumed (0.2 -> ~0.08 at T=120), then slightly produced/stabilizes (-> 0.1064).
S3 is initially produced (0.55 -> ~0.999 at T=55), then slightly consumed/stabilizes (-> 0.9450).

This means:
1. Reaction consuming S2 (and S1?) to make S3. (e.g. `S1 + S2 -> S3`)
   This explains initial drop of S1, S2 and rise of S3.
2. Reaction producing S2 (and S1?) from S3. (e.g. `S3 -> S1 + S2`)
   This explains later rise of S1, S2 and drop of S3.

This is still consistent with `S1 + S2 <=> S3`.
The problem remains:
- Initial phase: S2 drops from 0.1 to ~0. S1 drops from 0.2 to ~0.13. S3 rises from 0.55 to ~1.0.
  - Change in S2 ≈ -0.1
  - Change in S1 ≈ -0.07
  - Change in S3 ≈ +0.45
  If `S1 + S2 -> S3`, then consumption of S1 and S2 should be equimolar. Here, S2 is consumed more than S1 (0.1 vs 0.07).
  This suggests S2 might have a higher stoichiometric coefficient in consumption, OR S1 is also produced by some other means during this phase.

Let's assume the reaction is `S1 + S2 <=> S3`.
The initial rates:
dS1/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3
dS2/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3
dS3/dt = +kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3

If this is the only reaction, then dS1/dt must equal dS2/dt.
Let's check the experimental data for very early time points.
exp_data_df.iloc[0]: S1=0.2, S2=0.1, S3=0.55 (T=0)
exp_data_df.iloc[1]: S1=0.199855, S2=0.098384, S3=0.557886 (T=0.107296)
delta_S1 = -0.000145
delta_S2 = -0.001616
delta_S3 = +0.007886
dt = 0.107296

Rate_S1_exp ≈ delta_S1/dt = -0.000145 / 0.107296 ≈ -0.00135
Rate_S2_exp ≈ delta_S2/dt = -0.001616 / 0.107296 ≈ -0.01506
Rate_S3_exp ≈ delta_S3/dt = +0.007886 / 0.107296 ≈ +0.07350

Clearly, Rate_S1_exp is not equal to Rate_S2_exp.
This definitively rules out `S1 + S2 <=> S3` as the *sole* mechanism.

Since S2 is consumed much faster than S1 initially:
Possibility A: Stoichiometry is different, e.g., `S1 + n*S2 <=> m*S3`.
  If `S1 + n*S2 -> ...`: dS1/dt = -Rate, dS2/dt = -n*Rate. So |Rate_S2| = n * |Rate_S1|.
  n ≈ |-0.01506| / |-0.00135| ≈ 11.15. This suggests a very high coefficient for S2.
  If `S1 + 11*S2 -> m*S3`:
  Then dS3/dt = m*Rate. So |Rate_S3| = m * |Rate_S1|.
  m ≈ |+0.07350| / |-0.00135| ≈ 54.4.
  So, a candidate reaction could be `S1 + 11*S2 <=> 54*S3`. This seems biologically implausible due to such large stoichiometric coefficients.

Possibility B: There are multiple reactions.
Let S1=`id_j5qx`, S2=`id_o483`, S3=`id_lti5`.
Observed:
1. S2 decreases much faster than S1 initially.
2. S3 increases much faster than S1 or S2 (absolute) decrease initially.
3. S2 is consumed then produced. S1 is consumed then slightly produced. S3 is produced then slightly consumed.

Consider these reactions:
R1: `S2 -> S3` (Rate `k1 * S2`) (explains rapid S2 consumption and part of S3 production)
    dS1/dt = 0
    dS2/dt = -k1*S2
    dS3/dt = +k1*S2
R2: `S1 -> S3` (Rate `k2 * S1`) (explains S1 consumption and part of S3 production)
    dS1/dt = -k2*S1
    dS2/dt = 0
    dS3/dt = +k2*S1
R3: `S3 -> S1 + S2` (Rate `k3 * S3`) (explains regeneration)
    dS1/dt = +k3*S3
    dS2/dt = +k3*S3
    dS3/dt = -k3*S3

Net rates:
dS1/dt = -k2*S1 + k3*S3
dS2/dt = -k1*S2 + k3*S3
dS3/dt = +k1*S2 + k2*S1 - k3*S3

Initial rates (S1=0.2, S2=0.1, S3=0.55):
Rate_S1_exp ≈ -0.00135 = -k2*0.2 + k3*0.55
Rate_S2_exp ≈ -0.01506 = -k1*0.1 + k3*0.55
Rate_S3_exp ≈ +0.07350 = +k1*0.1 + k2*0.2 - k3*0.55

Notice that Rate_S3_exp = - (Rate_S1_exp + Rate_S2_exp) if the model is correct.
- (Rate_S1_exp + Rate_S2_exp) = - (-0.00135 - 0.01506) = - (-0.01641) = +0.01641.
This (0.01641) is NOT equal to Rate_S3_exp (0.07350).
So, this set of reactions (R1, R2, R3 as 1st order conversions) is also incorrect. The stoichiometry of S3 production or consumption in these reactions must be different.

The sum of S1+S2+S3 is not conserved.
Initial sum: 0.2 + 0.1 + 0.55 = 0.85
Equilibrium sum: 0.1064 + 0.4543 + 0.9450 = 1.5057
The total amount of substance in the system increases. This is a critical observation.
This means there must be a source reaction that is not simply a conversion between S1, S2, S3.
However, the problem states "You do not need to add new species." This implies that any source must be from the existing species, or a boundary species (none defined as boundary).

If total moles increase, it could be:
- `X -> S_i` (where X is a boundary species, but none are defined as such, and we can't add species)
- A reaction like `S1 -> 2*S1` (autocatalysis, but changes S1) or `S1 -> S1 + S2` (S1 converts to S2 but S1 is also a product).
- Or, the stoichiometry is such that fewer molecules form more molecules, e.g., `S1 -> S2 + S3`.

Let's re-check the sum of concentrations over time from experimental data:
T=0: Sum = 0.2 + 0.1 + 0.55 = 0.85
T=0.107: Sum = 0.199855 + 0.098384 + 0.557886 = 0.856125 (slight increase)
T=55 (approx S3 peak): S1=0.133, S2=0.000715, S3=0.999. Sum = 1.1327 (significant increase)
T=300 (equilibrium): Sum = 0.106380 + 0.454252 + 0.945029 = 1.505661 (further increase)

The total concentration of S1+S2+S3 is increasing. This is a key finding.
This means there must be a reaction that produces more molecules than it consumes from {S1, S2, S3}.
Example reactions that increase total moles:
  - `S1 -> 2*S1` (unlikely to be the main driver for all species)
  - `S1 -> S1 + S2` (S1 acts as catalyst to produce S2)
  - `S1 -> S2 + S3`
  - `S1 -> 2*S2`
  - `S1 -> S2` (no change in moles)
  - `2*S1 -> S1` (decrease in moles)

Consider the reaction `S1 -> S2 + S3`.
  dS1/dt = -k
  dS2/dt = +k
  dS3/dt = +k
  Change in total moles = (-k + k + k) * dt = k*dt > 0. This fits.

Consider `S1 -> S1 + S2` (i.e. S1 catalyzes production of S2 from an implicit source, or S1 itself is not consumed but produces S2). This is often written as `X -> S2` with rate `k*S1`. If no X, then `S1 -> S1+S2` is `0 -> S2` catalyzed by S1.
If it's `S1 -> S1 + S2`, then S1 is a catalyst for S2 production.
  dS1/dt = 0 (if S1 is purely a catalyst)
  dS2/dt = +k*S1
  dS3/dt = 0
  Change in total moles = k*S1*dt > 0.
This reaction would increase S2, S1 unchanged. Does not fit S1 decrease.

What if one of the species, say S3, dissociates into S1 and S2? `S3 -> S1 + S2`. This is the reverse reaction we've considered. This reaction *increases* the total number of moles by 1 for each S3 molecule that reacts.
Rate: `k_rev * S3`.
  dS1/dt = +k_rev*S3
  dS2/dt = +k_rev*S3
  dS3/dt = -k_rev*S3
  Change in total moles = (+k_rev*S3 + k_rev*S3 - k_rev*S3)*dt = k_rev*S3*dt > 0.

What if the forward reaction is `S1 + S2 -> S3`? This reaction *decreases* total moles by 1.
Rate: `k_fwd * S1 * S2`.
  dS1/dt = -k_fwd*S1*S2
  dS2/dt = -k_fwd*S1*S2
  dS3/dt = +k_fwd*S1*S2
  Change in total moles = (-k_fwd*S1*S2 - k_fwd*S1*S2 + k_fwd*S1*S2)*dt = -k_fwd*S1*S2*dt < 0.

So, if we have `S1 + S2 <=> S3`:
Net change in moles = (k_rev*S3 - k_fwd*S1*S2)*dt.
Initially: S1=0.2, S2=0.1, S3=0.55.
  k_fwd*S1*S2 = k_fwd * 0.02
  k_rev*S3 = k_rev * 0.55
The sum of concentrations increases from 0.85 to 1.505. So, overall, the reverse reaction (mol-increasing) must be stronger or become dominant compared to the forward reaction (mol-decreasing).
This means that at equilibrium, `k_rev*S3_eq > k_fwd*S1_eq*S2_eq` if we only consider mole changes from these reactions. But at equilibrium, net rate is zero, so `k_rev*S3_eq = k_fwd*S1_eq*S2_eq`. This means this reversible reaction alone results in NO net change in moles at equilibrium, and the direction of mole change depends on which reaction (fwd/rev) is dominant when not at equilibrium.

If the system starts with 0.85 moles and ends with 1.505 moles, there must be a net production of moles.
The reaction `S1 + S2 <=> S3` alone cannot explain a permanent net increase in total moles if it reaches equilibrium. It can only shift moles between species.

This implies there's another reaction that generates moles, e.g., `X -> S1` or `S1 -> 2 S1` or `S1 -> S2 + S3`.
Since we cannot add species, let's consider reactions involving only S1, S2, S3.
Possible mole-generating reactions:
1.  `S_i -> S_j + S_k` (e.g., `S1 -> S2 + S3`)
2.  `S_i -> S_i + S_j` (e.g., `S1 catalyses S_j production from implicit source: 0 -> Sj, rate k*S1`)
3.  `S_i -> 2 S_j`
4.  `S_i -> S_j + S_k + S_l` (e.g. `S1 -> S1+S2+S3` which is `0 -> S2+S3` catalyzed by S1)

Let's re-examine the initial rates and the sum:
Rate_S1_exp ≈ -0.00135
Rate_S2_exp ≈ -0.01506
Rate_S3_exp ≈ +0.07350
Sum of rates = -0.00135 - 0.01506 + 0.07350 = +0.05709. This is the initial rate of change of total moles. It's positive, consistent with sum increasing.

Consider the hypothesis:
R1: `S1 + S2 -> S3` (rate `k1 * S1 * S2`) (consumes 1 mole)
R2: `S3 -> S1 + S2` (rate `k2 * S3`) (produces 1 mole)
R_source: A reaction that produces net moles.

What if S3 is also a source for itself, or for S1/S2?
E.g. `S3 -> S3 + S1` (S3 catalyses S1 production) rate `k_cat * S3`
  dS1/dt = -k1*S1*S2 + k2*S3 + k_cat*S3
  dS2/dt = -k1*S1*S2 + k2*S3
  dS3/dt = +k1*S1*S2 - k2*S3
  d(Sum)/dt = (-k1*S1*S2 + k2*S3 + k_cat*S3) + (-k1*S1*S2 + k2*S3) + (k1*S1*S2 - k2*S3)
             = -k1*S1*S2 + k2*S3 + k_cat*S3.
This is the rate of change of S1. This doesn't seem right.
If `S3 -> S3 + S1`, then S3 is a catalyst for `0 -> S1`.
  dS1/dt = +k_cat*S3
  dS2/dt = 0
  dS3/dt = 0 (if S3 is catalyst)
  d(Sum)/dt = k_cat*S3.

Let's try this set of reactions:
H1:
  R1: `S1 + S2 -> S3` (kf1 * S1 * S2)
  R2: `S3 -> S1 + S2` (kr1 * S3)
  R3: `S3 -> S3 + S2` (kf2 * S3) (S3 catalyses production of S2, so S2 is produced from "nothing")
This R3 is essentially `0 -> S2` with rate `kf2 * S3`.

Let's analyze R3: `0 -> S2` (catalyzed by S3).
  dS1/dt = -kf1*S1*S2 + kr1*S3
  dS2/dt = -kf1*S1*S2 + kr1*S3 + kf2*S3
  dS3/dt = +kf1*S1*S2 - kr1*S3
  d(Sum)/dt = dS1/dt + dS2/dt + dS3/dt = (-kf1*S1*S2 + kr1*S3) + (-kf1*S1*S2 + kr1*S3 + kf2*S3) + (kf1*S1*S2 - kr1*S3)
             = -kf1*S1*S2 + kr1*S3 + kf2*S3.

Initial rates (S1=0.2, S2=0.1, S3=0.55):
Rate_S1_exp ≈ -0.00135 = -kf1*0.02 + kr1*0.55
Rate_S2_exp ≈ -0.01506 = -kf1*0.02 + kr1*0.55 + kf2*0.55
Rate_S3_exp ≈ +0.07350 = +kf1*0.02 - kr1*0.55

From S1 and S3 rates:
Rate_S1_exp = - Rate_S3_exp
-0.00135 = -0.07350. This is FALSE. So this model is also incorrect.

The term `kf1*S1*S2 - kr1*S3` is the net rate of the reversible reaction. Let this be `v_rev`.
Rate_S1 = -v_rev
Rate_S3 = +v_rev
This implies Rate_S1 = -Rate_S3.
Experimental: -0.00135 vs -0.07350. Not true.

This means the consumption of S1 and production of S3 are not solely linked by `S1+S2 <=> S3`.
And consumption of S2 is also not solely by this.

Let's simplify. The total amount of substance increases. There must be a reaction like `A -> A+B` or `A -> B+C`.
The species S2 shows a very dramatic behavior: sharp drop, then large increase to a level higher than initial.
This suggests S2 is consumed quickly, then produced by a source reaction.
S1 drops, then slightly recovers but stays below initial.
S3 rises, then slightly drops but stays above initial.

Consider:
R1: `S1 + S2 -> S3` (k1 * S1 * S2)
R2: `S3 -> S1` (k2 * S3)  (S3 decays to S1, S2 is not regenerated here)
R3: `S1 -> S2` (k3 * S1) (Source of S2 from S1, this is mole-neutral) OR
R3_alt: `0 -> S2` (k3, constant production of S2, this is mole-generating) OR
R3_alt2: `S_any -> S_any + S2` (catalyzed production of S2, mole-generating)

Let's try to explain the initial rates:
Rate_S1_exp ≈ -0.00135
Rate_S2_exp ≈ -0.01506
Rate_S3_exp ≈ +0.07350
Sum_rates ≈ +0.05709 (this is d(Sum)/dt)

If R1: `S1 + S2 -> S3` (rate v1)
   R2: `S3 -> S1 + S2` (rate v2)
   R3: `S_X -> S_Y + S_Z` (a mole generating reaction, rate v3)
   R4: `S_A -> S_B` (a mole neutral conversion, rate v4)

The fact that S2 drops to almost zero and then recovers strongly suggests that S2 is consumed by R1 and then S2 is produced by R2 and/or R3.
The increase in total moles must come from a reaction like `A -> B+C` or `A -> A+B`.
What if the source is `S1 -> S2 + S3`? (rate `k_source * S1`)
  dS1/dt = -k_source*S1
  dS2/dt = +k_source*S1
  dS3/dt = +k_source*S1
  d(Sum)/dt = k_source*S1. (Increases moles by 1 per reaction event)

Let's combine this with the reversible reaction:
R_fwd: `S1 + S2 -> S3` (rate `kf * S1 * S2`)
R_rev: `S3 -> S1 + S2` (rate `kr * S3`)
R_source: `S1 -> S2 + S3` (rate `ks * S1`)

Net rates:
dS1/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3 - ks*S1
dS2/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3 + ks*S1
dS3/dt = +kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3 + ks*S1

Initial values: S1=0.2, S2=0.1, S3=0.55
dS1/dt = -kf*0.02 + kr*0.55 - ks*0.2  (eq 1) = -0.00135
dS2/dt = -kf*0.02 + kr*0.55 + ks*0.2  (eq 2) = -0.01506
dS3/dt = +kf*0.02 - kr*0.55 + ks*0.2  (eq 3) = +0.07350

From (eq 1) and (eq 2):
(dS2/dt) - (dS1/dt) = (-kf*0.02 + kr*0.55 + ks*0.2) - (-kf*0.02 + kr*0.55 - ks*0.2)
                    = 2 * ks * 0.2 = 0.4 * ks
-0.01506 - (-0.00135) = -0.01506 + 0.00135 = -0.01371
So, `0.4 * ks = -0.01371` => `ks = -0.01371 / 0.4 = -0.034275`.
A rate constant `ks` cannot be negative. This model is also incorrect.

The error might be in `R_source: S1 -> S2 + S3`. What if S1 is not consumed?
`0 -> S2 + S3` catalyzed by S1? (rate `ks * S1`)
  dS1/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3
  dS2/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3 + ks*S1
  dS3/dt = +kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3 + ks*S1

Initial rates:
dS1/dt = -kf*0.02 + kr*0.55 (eq 1') = -0.00135
dS2/dt = -kf*0.02 + kr*0.55 + ks*0.2 (eq 2') = -0.01506
dS3/dt = +kf*0.02 - kr*0.55 + ks*0.2 (eq 3') = +0.07350

From (eq 1'): `v_rev_net = kf*0.02 - kr*0.55 = 0.00135` (net consumption for S1+S2->S3)
Substitute into (eq 2'):
dS2/dt = - (kf*0.02 - kr*0.55) + ks*0.2 = -0.00135 + ks*0.2 = -0.01506
ks*0.2 = -0.01506 + 0.00135 = -0.01371
ks = -0.01371 / 0.2 = -0.06855. Still negative.

This means the source reaction is not `0 -> S2+S3` catalyzed by S1.

Let's check the sum of rates again:
dS1/dt + dS2/dt + dS3/dt = `(-v_rev) + (-v_rev + ks*S1) + (v_rev + ks*S1)`
                         = `-v_rev + 2*ks*S1`
                         = `-(kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3) + 2*ks*S1`
This should be `d(Sum)/dt = +0.05709`.
`-(0.00135) + 2*ks*0.2 = 0.05709`
`-0.00135 + 0.4*ks = 0.05709`
`0.4*ks = 0.05709 + 0.00135 = 0.05844`
`ks = 0.05844 / 0.4 = 0.1461`. This is positive. This is promising for `ks`.

So, if `ks = 0.1461`, then:
`v_rev_net = kf*0.02 - kr*0.55`
dS1/dt = -v_rev_net = -0.00135  => v_rev_net = 0.00135
dS2/dt = -v_rev_net + ks*S1 = -0.00135 + 0.1461*0.2 = -0.00135 + 0.02922 = 0.02787.
This is NOT Rate_S2_exp (-0.01506).

dS3/dt = +v_rev_net + ks*S1 = +0.00135 + 0.1461*0.2 = 0.00135 + 0.02922 = 0.03057.
This is NOT Rate_S3_exp (0.07350).

The model `S1+S2 <=> S3` combined with `0 -> S2+S3 catalyzed by S1` (rate `ks*S1`) does not fit the initial rates correctly.

Let's try a different source reaction. What if S2 is the catalyst?
Source: `0 -> S1 + S3` catalyzed by S2 (rate `ks * S2`)
  dS1/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3 + ks*S2
  dS2/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3
  dS3/dt = +kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3 + ks*S2

Initial rates:
dS1/dt = -kf*0.02 + kr*0.55 + ks*0.1 (eq A) = -0.00135
dS2/dt = -kf*0.02 + kr*0.55 (eq B) = -0.01506
dS3/dt = +kf*0.02 - kr*0.55 + ks*0.1 (eq C) = +0.07350

From (eq B): `v_rev_net = kf*0.02 - kr*0.55 = 0.01506`. (Net consumption for S1+S2->S3)
Substitute into (eq A):
dS1/dt = -v_rev_net + ks*0.1 = -0.01506 + ks*0.1 = -0.00135
ks*0.1 = -0.00135 + 0.01506 = 0.01371
ks = 0.01371 / 0.1 = 0.1371. This is positive.

Now check (eq C) with these values:
dS3/dt = +v_rev_net + ks*0.1 = +0.01506 + 0.1371*0.1 = 0.01506 + 0.01371 = 0.02877.
This is NOT Rate_S3_exp (0.07350).

This approach of decomposing into `S1+S2 <=> S3` plus a source seems problematic if the source is catalyzed by S1 or S2.

What if the source is catalyzed by S3?
Source: `0 -> S1 + S2` catalyzed by S3 (rate `ks * S3`)
  dS1/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3 + ks*S3
  dS2/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3 + ks*S3
  dS3/dt = +kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3

Initial rates:
dS1/dt = -kf*0.02 + kr*0.55 + ks*0.55 (eq X) = -0.00135
dS2/dt = -kf*0.02 + kr*0.55 + ks*0.55 (eq Y) = -0.01506
dS3/dt = +kf*0.02 - kr*0.55 (eq Z) = +0.07350

From (eq X) and (eq Y), dS1/dt should be equal to dS2/dt.
But -0.00135 != -0.01506. So this model is also incorrect.

The core issue is that dS1/dt, dS2/dt are different, and dS3/dt is not simply -(dS1/dt) or -(dS2/dt) for the S1+S2<=>S3 part.

Let's list the reactions and their effect on S1, S2, S3 and Sum.
R1: `id_j5qx + id_o483 -> id_lti5` (k1 * S1 * S2)
  S1: -1, S2: -1, S3: +1, Sum: -1
R2: `id_lti5 -> id_j5qx + id_o483` (k2 * S3)
  S1: +1, S2: +1, S3: -1, Sum: +1

To account for dS1 != dS2 initially:
Perhaps S2 is consumed in another reaction not involving S1?
R3: `id_o483 -> id_lti5` (k3 * S2)
  S1: 0, S2: -1, S3: +1, Sum: 0 (mole neutral)

Let's try this set:
R1: `S1 + S2 -> S3` (v1 = k1*S1*S2)
R2: `S3 -> S1 + S2` (v2 = k2*S3)
R3: `S2 -> S3`      (v3 = k3*S2)

dS1/dt = -v1 + v2
dS2/dt = -v1 + v2 - v3
dS3/dt = +v1 - v2 + v3

Initial rates:
S1'= -k1*0.02 + k2*0.55 = -0.00135 (eq i)
S2'= -k1*0.02 + k2*0.55 - k3*0.1 = -0.01506 (eq ii)
S3'= +k1*0.02 - k2*0.55 + k3*0.1 = +0.07350 (eq iii)

From (i), let `X = -k1*0.02 + k2*0.55`. So `X = -0.00135`.
Substitute X into (ii):
S2' = X - k3*0.1 = -0.00135 - k3*0.1 = -0.01506
-k3*0.1 = -0.01506 + 0.00135 = -0.01371
k3*0.1 = 0.01371 => k3 = 0.1371. (Positive, good)

Substitute X into (iii):
S3' = -X + k3*0.1 = -(-0.00135) + 0.1371*0.1
    = 0.00135 + 0.01371 = 0.01506.
This calculated S3' (0.01506) must equal experimental S3' (0.07350). They are not equal.
So this model (R1, R2, R3) is also not correct.

The sum of moles change for this model:
d(Sum)/dt = dS1/dt + dS2/dt + dS3/dt
          = (-v1+v2) + (-v1+v2-v3) + (v1-v2+v3)
          = -v1+v2
This is `X = -0.00135`. This is negative, meaning total moles should decrease initially.
But we observed total moles increase initially (d(Sum)/dt = +0.05709).
So this model is definitely not it.

We need a mole-generating reaction.
What if R3 was `S2 -> S2 + S3` (i.e. `0->S3` catalyzed by S2, rate `k3*S2`)?
  S1: 0, S2: 0, S3: +1, Sum: +1
R1: `S1 + S2 -> S3` (v1 = k1*S1*S2)
R2: `S3 -> S1 + S2` (v2 = k2*S3)
R_cat: `0 -> S3` (catalyzed by S2, v_cat = k_cat*S2)

dS1/dt = -v1 + v2
dS2/dt = -v1 + v2  (S2 is catalyst, not consumed/produced by R_cat)
dS3/dt = +v1 - v2 + v_cat

Initial rates:
S1'= -k1*0.02 + k2*0.55 = -0.00135 (eq a)
S2'= -k1*0.02 + k2*0.55 = -0.01506 (eq b)
S3'= +k1*0.02 - k2*0.55 + k_cat*0.1 = +0.07350 (eq c)

From (a) and (b), S1' must equal S2'.
-0.00135 != -0.01506. This model is incorrect.

It seems the reaction `S1+S2 <=> S3` is a good candidate for the reversibility, but the additional reactions are tricky.
The key discrepancies are:
1.  Initial dS1/dt != dS2/dt. (S2 consumed faster)
2.  Initial dS3/dt is very large and positive.
3.  Total moles increase.

Let's try a model:
M1: `id_j5qx + id_o483 <=> id_lti5` (k_f, k_r)
M2: `id_o483 -> id_lti5` (k_conv) (S2 converts to S3, mole neutral, explains extra S2 consumption and S3 production)
M3: `0 -> id_lti5` (k_source) (A source for S3, mole generating, explains total mole increase and large S3 production)

Rates:
v_f = k_f * S1 * S2
v_r = k_r * S3
v_conv = k_conv * S2
v_source = k_source (0-order production of S3)

dS1/dt = -v_f + v_r
dS2/dt = -v_f + v_r - v_conv
dS3/dt = +v_f - v_r + v_conv + v_source

Initial values: S1=0.2, S2=0.1, S3=0.55
Let X = `-k_f*0.02 + k_r*0.55`.
S1' = X = -0.00135
S2' = X - k_conv*0.1 = -0.00135 - k_conv*0.1 = -0.01506
  -k_conv*0.1 = -0.01506 + 0.00135 = -0.01371
  k_conv = 0.01371 / 0.1 = 0.1371 (Positive, good)
S3' = -X + k_conv*0.1 + k_source = -(-0.00135) + 0.1371*0.1 + k_source = +0.07350
  0.00135 + 0.01371 + k_source = 0.07350
  0.01506 + k_source = 0.07350
  k_source = 0.07350 - 0.01506 = 0.05844 (Positive, good)

This model structure (M1, M2, M3) is consistent with the initial rates if we can find k_f, k_r such that `-k_f*0.02 + k_r*0.55 = -0.00135`.
We have three parameters (k_f, k_r, k_conv, k_source) that are determined from initial rates, except k_f and k_r are linked.
k_conv = 0.1371
k_source = 0.05844

Now we need k_f and k_r. We have one equation for them from initial rates:
`-0.02*k_f + 0.55*k_r = -0.00135` (Eq1_kf_kr)
And another from equilibrium conditions:
S1_eq=0.1064, S2_eq=0.4543, S3_eq=0.9450
At equilibrium, dS1/dt = 0, dS2/dt = 0, dS3/dt = 0.
dS1/dt = -k_f*S1_eq*S2_eq + k_r*S3_eq = 0
  `k_f * (0.1064 * 0.4543) = k_r * 0.9450`
  `k_f * 0.04833572 = k_r * 0.9450`
  `k_f / k_r = 0.9450 / 0.04833572 ≈ 19.549` (Eq2_kf_kr)
  So, `k_f = 19.549 * k_r`.

Substitute k_f in Eq1_kf_kr:
`-0.02 * (19.549 * k_r) + 0.55 * k_r = -0.00135`
`-0.39098 * k_r + 0.55 * k_r = -0.00135`
`0.15902 * k_r = -0.00135`
`k_r = -0.00135 / 0.15902 ≈ -0.008489`
Rate constants cannot be negative. This model is also flawed.

The issue is that `-k_f*S1_eq*S2_eq + k_r*S3_eq = 0` assumes that R_conv and R_source are not affecting this balance for S1. This is true for S1.
However, for S2 and S3, the equilibrium conditions are:
dS2/dt = -k_f*S1e*S2e + k_r*S3e - k_conv*S2e = 0
dS3/dt = +k_f*S1e*S2e - k_r*S3e + k_conv*S2e + k_source = 0

From dS1/dt=0 at eq: `k_f*S1e*S2e = k_r*S3e`. Let this value be `V_eq`.
Then for dS2/dt=0: `-V_eq + V_eq - k_conv*S2e = 0` => `-k_conv*S2e = 0`.
This implies `k_conv = 0` or `S2e = 0`.
S2e is 0.4543, so this means `k_conv` must be 0.
But we found `k_conv = 0.1371` from initial rates. This is a contradiction.

The model needs to be such that at equilibrium, all rates balance out.
If k_conv = 0, then:
S1' = X = -0.00135
S2' = X = -0.01506. (Contradiction: -0.00135 != -0.01506)

My assumption that dS1/dt at equilibrium is solely due to R1 and R2 might be too simple if S1 is involved in other reactions. But in the M1,M2,M3 model, S1 is only in R1 and R2.

Let's try to build a model that fits the equilibrium state first, then check initial rates.
Equilibrium: S1=0.1064, S2=0.4543, S3=0.9450
Total moles increased from 0.85 to 1.5057. Net increase = 0.6557.
This suggests a net source.

Consider a very simple model:
R1: `S1 + S2 <=> S3` (kf, kr)
R_source: `0 -> S2` (ks) (Source of S2, mole generating)

dS1/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3
dS2/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3 + ks
dS3/dt = +kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3

At equilibrium:
(1) `-kf*S1e*S2e + kr*S3e = 0`
(2) `-kf*S1e*S2e + kr*S3e + ks = 0`
(3) `+kf*S1e*S2e - kr*S3e = 0`
From (1) and (2), this implies `ks = 0`. If ks=0, no source, no mole increase. Contradiction.

The source must be balanced by something.
What if the source is `S_i -> S_j + S_k` and this is reversible?
Or `0 <=> S2`? (i.e. `0->S2` (ksf) and `S2->0` (ksr))
R1: `S1 + S2 <=> S3` (kf, kr)
R_S2_source: `0 -> S2` (ksf)
R_S2_sink: `S2 -> 0` (ksr * S2)

dS1/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3
dS2/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3 + ksf - ksr*S2
dS3/dt = +kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3

At equilibrium (S1e, S2e, S3e):
(1) `-kf*S1e*S2e + kr*S3e = 0` => `kf*S1e*S2e = kr*S3e`. Let this be `V_eq_rev`.
(2) `-V_eq_rev + V_eq_rev + ksf - ksr*S2e = 0` => `ksf = ksr*S2e`.
(3) `V_eq_rev - V_eq_rev = 0`. (Consistent)

So, at equilibrium:
`kf/kr = S3e / (S1e*S2e) = 0.9450 / (0.1064 * 0.4543) = 19.549`.
`ksf/ksr = S2e = 0.4543`.

Now check initial rates (S1_0=0.2, S2_0=0.1, S3_0=0.55):
S1' = -kf*0.02 + kr*0.55 = -0.00135 (Eq A)
S2' = -kf*0.02 + kr*0.55 + ksf - ksr*0.1 = -0.01506 (Eq B)
S3' = +kf*0.02 - kr*0.55 = +0.07350 (Eq C)

From (A) and (C): S1' = -S3'.
-0.00135 = -0.07350. This is FALSE.
This model is also incorrect. The simple `S1+S2 <=> S3` part implies S1' = -S3', which is not observed.

This means S1 or S3 (or both) must be part of another reaction that breaks this symmetry.
If S3 is produced by another reaction: `X -> S3`.
R1: `S1 + S2 <=> S3` (kf, kr)
R_S3_prod: `0 -> S3` (k_prod_S3)
R_S3_deg: `S3 -> 0` (k_deg_S3 * S3) (to balance production at eq)

dS1/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3
dS2/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3
dS3/dt = +kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3 + k_prod_S3 - k_deg_S3*S3

This model implies dS1/dt = dS2/dt. But experimentally, S1' != S2'. So this is also wrong.

One of S1 or S2 must have unique terms. S2 is consumed much faster.
Model attempt "Hera":
R1: `S1 + S2 -> S3` (k1 * S1 * S2)
R2: `S3 -> S1 + S2` (k2 * S3)
R3: `S2 -> 0` (k3 * S2) (S2 degradation/consumption, explains faster S2 drop)
R4: `0 -> S3` (k4) (S3 source, explains S3 increase and mole generation)

dS1/dt = -k1*S1*S2 + k2*S3
dS2/dt = -k1*S1*S2 + k2*S3 - k3*S2
dS3/dt = +k1*S1*S2 - k2*S3 + k4

Initial rates: Let `X = -k1*0.02 + k2*0.55`.
S1' = X = -0.00135
S2' = X - k3*0.1 = -0.00135 - k3*0.1 = -0.01506
  -k3*0.1 = -0.01371 => k3 = 0.1371. (Positive)
S3' = -X + k4 = -(-0.00135) + k4 = 0.00135 + k4 = +0.07350
  k4 = 0.07350 - 0.00135 = 0.07215. (Positive)

So we have k3=0.1371, k4=0.07215.
And `-0.02*k1 + 0.55*k2 = -0.00135`.

Equilibrium conditions (S1e=0.1064, S2e=0.4543, S3e=0.9450):
dS1/dt = -k1*S1e*S2e + k2*S3e = 0 => `k1*S1e*S2e = k2*S3e`.
  `k1 * 0.04833572 = k2 * 0.9450` => `k1/k2 = 19.549`. So `k1 = 19.549 * k2`.

dS3/dt = +k1*S1e*S2e - k2*S3e + k4 = 0. Since `k1*S1e*S2e = k2*S3e`, this means `k4 = 0`.
This contradicts `k4 = 0.07215`. So, Model Hera is also incorrect.

The source term k4 must be balanced by a sink at equilibrium.
If R4 is `0 <=> S3` (k4f, k4r*S3).
R1: `S1 + S2 -> S3` (k1 * S1 * S2)
R2: `S3 -> S1 + S2` (k2 * S3)
R3: `S2 -> 0` (k3 * S2) (This is a sink for S2, but S2 increases overall. So S2 needs a source too)
R4: `0 -> S3` (k4f)
R5: `S3 -> 0` (k4r * S3)

This is getting very complex. Let's try to find a minimal set of reactions.
The fact that S2 drops then rises above initial means it has a net source.
The fact that S1 drops then slightly rises but below initial means it has a net sink or complex interplay.
The fact that S3 rises then slightly drops but above initial means it has a net source.
Total moles increase.

What if the core reaction is not S1+S2 <=> S3?
What if S3 is a central molecule?
R1: `S1 -> S3` (k1*S1)
R2: `S2 -> S3` (k2*S2)
R3: `S3 -> S1` (k3*S3)
R4: `S3 -> S2` (k4*S3)
R5: `0 -> S3` (k5) (source of S3)
R6: `S3 -> 0` (k6*S3) (sink for S3, to balance k5)

This is a hub-and-spoke model around S3.
dS1/dt = -k1*S1 + k3*S3
dS2/dt = -k2*S2 + k4*S3
dS3/dt = +k1*S1 + k2*S2 - k3*S3 - k4*S3 + k5 - k6*S3

This is 6 parameters.
This model can explain S1' != S2'.
d(Sum)/dt = k5 - k6*S3. If k5 > k6*S3_initial, sum increases.

This is a plausible structure. I will try to fit this.
This is a linear system if S1, S2, S3 are variables.
This is a common motif.

Let's try to estimate parameters for this "Hub" model.
Initial rates:
S1' = -k1*0.2 + k3*0.55 = -0.00135 (Eq H1)
S2' = -k2*0.1 + k4*0.55 = -0.01506 (Eq H2)
S3' = +k1*0.2 + k2*0.1 - (k3+k4+k6)*0.55 + k5 = +0.07350 (Eq H3)

Equilibrium:
S1e=0.1064, S2e=0.4543, S3e=0.9450
`k1*S1e = k3*S3e` => `k1*0.1064 = k3*0.9450` => `k1/k3 = 0.9450/0.1064 ≈ 8.8816` (Eq H4)
`k2*S2e = k4*S3e` => `k2*0.4543 = k4*0.9450` => `k2/k4 = 0.9450/0.4543 ≈ 2.0799` (Eq H5)
`k5 = k6*S3e` (if S3 production/degradation is independent) OR from dS3/dt=0:
`k1*S1e + k2*S2e - (k3+k4+k6)*S3e + k5 = 0`
Using H4, H5: `k3*S3e + k4*S3e - (k3+k4+k6)*S3e + k5 = 0`
`k3*S3e + k4*S3e - k3*S3e - k4*S3e - k6*S3e + k5 = 0`
`-k6*S3e + k5 = 0` => `k5 = k6*S3e`. This is consistent.
So, `k5/k6 = S3e = 0.9450`. (Eq H6)

We have 6 parameters and 6 equations (3 initial rates, 3 equilibrium ratios).
From H4: `k1 = 8.8816 * k3`. Substitute into H1:
  `- (8.8816 * k3) * 0.2 + k3*0.55 = -0.00135`
  `-1.77632 * k3 + 0.55 * k3 = -0.00135`
  `-1.22632 * k3 = -0.00135`
  `k3 = 0.00135 / 1.22632 ≈ 0.0011008`
  `k1 = 8.8816 * k3 ≈ 8.8816 * 0.0011008 ≈ 0.009776`

From H5: `k2 = 2.0799 * k4`. Substitute into H2:
  `-(2.0799 * k4) * 0.1 + k4*0.55 = -0.01506`
  `-0.20799 * k4 + 0.55 * k4 = -0.01506`
  `0.34201 * k4 = -0.01506`
  `k4 = -0.01506 / 0.34201 ≈ -0.04403`. Rate constant cannot be negative.

The Hub model also fails. The problem is that S2 is consumed initially (-0.01506), but at equilibrium S2/S3 ratio (related to k4) must be positive.
`-k2*S2_init + k4*S3_init < 0`
`k4*S3_init < k2*S2_init`
`k4/k2 < S2_init / S3_init = 0.1 / 0.55 = 0.1818`
But from equilibrium, `k4/k2 = S2e / S3e = 0.4543 / 0.9450 = 0.4807`.
0.4807 is not less than 0.1818. This is the contradiction.

This means the reaction `S2 <-> S3` part of the hub model cannot explain S2's behavior. S2 needs a stronger consumption term initially than just `S2 -> S3`, or S3 needs to produce S2 less effectively initially.

I need to submit a model soon. The simplest model that failed was `S1+S2 <=> S3`. The failure was due to initial rates and equilibrium constants being contradictory.
The key is `S1'` vs `S3'` and `S2'` vs `S1'`.
S1' = -0.00135
S2' = -0.01506
S3' = +0.07350

If I use the model from Iteration 2: `S1+S2 <=> S3` with kf=20, kr=1.
S1_init=0.2, S2_init=0.1, S3_init=0.55
Initial rate from model: `kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3 = 20*0.2*0.1 - 1*0.55 = 0.4 - 0.55 = -0.15`.
So, dS1/dt = -0.15, dS2/dt = -0.15, dS3/dt = +0.15.
This is very different from experimental initial rates.

Let's try to find parameters for `S1+S2 <=> S3` that at least match S1's initial rate or S3's initial rate.
If dS3/dt = 0.07350, then `kf*0.02 - kr*0.55 = 0.07350`.
And `kf/kr = 19.549` (from equilibrium). `kf = 19.549 kr`.
`19.549*kr*0.02 - kr*0.55 = 0.07350`
`0.39098*kr - 0.55*kr = 0.07350`
`-0.15902*kr = 0.07350`
`kr = -0.07350 / 0.15902 = -0.4622`. Negative kr. This is why it failed.
The net reaction `S1+S2 -> S3` must be initially positive, but equilibrium requires `kf/kr` that makes it negative.

This implies that the reaction `S1+S2 <=> S3` is NOT the main driver, or its stoichiometry is wrong, or other reactions dominate.
The increase in total moles is a huge clue.
A reaction `0 -> S_i` or `S_i -> S_j + S_k`.

Let's try one last model structure:
R1: `S1 + S2 -> S3` (k1*S1*S2)
R2: `S3 -> S1` (k2*S3) (No S2 production from S3 here)
R3: `0 -> S2` (k3) (Source of S2)
R4: `0 -> S3` (k4) (Source of S3)
(This lacks S2 sink, S3 sink, S1 sink for proper equilibrium unless k's are zero)

This is hard. I will go with a slightly modified version of the initial hypothesis, focusing on getting the equilibrium somewhat right and acknowledging the initial rate issue might be due to a fast transient not captured by simple mass-action or a missing fast reaction.

Given the contradictions, a simple mass-action model with few reactions is unlikely to fit perfectly.
I will try to find *some* positive kf, kr for `S1+S2 <=> S3` that might give a "best compromise" or reveals more.
The equilibrium `kf/kr = 19.55`. Let `kr=1`, then `kf=19.55`.
Initial rate: `19.55 * 0.02 - 1 * 0.55 = 0.391 - 0.55 = -0.159`.
This means S1, S2 decrease, S3 increases. This is qualitatively correct for S3.
S1_exp_rate = -0.00135. Model S1_rate = -0.159. (Too fast consumption)
S2_exp_rate = -0.01506. Model S2_rate = -0.159. (Too fast, and S1/S2 rates are equal in model)
S3_exp_rate = +0.07350. Model S3_rate = +0.159. (Too fast production)

The model is too fast and doesn't differentiate S1/S2 consumption.
To slow it down, scale kf and kr down. E.g., kr=0.1, kf=1.955.
Initial rate: `1.955 * 0.02 - 0.1 * 0.55 = 0.0391 - 0.055 = -0.0159`.
S1'/S2' = -0.0159. S3' = +0.0159.
This S1' (-0.0159) is closer to S2_exp_rate (-0.01506) than S1_exp_rate (-0.00135).
S3' (+0.0159) is much smaller than S3_exp_rate (+0.07350).

This suggests S3 has an additional production pathway, and S1 has a production pathway or less consumption.
Model:
R1: `S1 + S2 <=> S3` (kf, kr as above: kf=1.955, kr=0.1)
R_S3_source: `0 -> S3` (k_source_S3)
R_S1_source: `0 -> S1` (k_source_S1) (to make S1 consumption slower)

dS1/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3 + k_source_S1
dS2/dt = -kf*S1*S2 + kr*S3
dS3/dt = +kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3 + k_source_S3

Let `V_rev_net = kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3`. With kf=1.955, kr=0.1, initial V_rev_net = 0.0159.
S1' = -0.0159 + k_source_S1 = -0.00135 => k_source_S1 = 0.0159 - 0.00135 = 0.01455.
S2' = -0.0159. (Matches S2_exp_rate = -0.01506 reasonably well).
S3' = +0.0159 + k_source_S3 = +0.07350 => k_source_S3 = 0.07350 - 0.0159 = 0.0576.

Parameters: kf=1.955, kr=0.1, k_source_S1=0.01455, k_source_S3=0.0576. All positive.
This model has 3 reactions:
1. `id_j5qx + id_o483 <=> id_lti5` (kf=1.955, kr=0.1)
2. `0 -> id_j5qx` (parameter k_s1 = 0.01455)
3. `0 -> id_lti5` (parameter k_s3 = 0.0576)

Let's check equilibrium for this model:
S1e=0.1064, S2e=0.4543, S3e=0.9450
dS1/dt = -kf*S1e*S2e + kr*S3e + k_s1 = 0
  `V_rev_net_eq = kf*S1e*S2e - kr*S3e`
  `-V_rev_net_eq + k_s1 = 0` => `V_rev_net_eq = k_s1 = 0.01455`.
  `1.955 * (0.1064*0.4543) - 0.1 * 0.9450 = 1.955 * 0.04833572 - 0.09450`
  `= 0.094496 - 0.09450 ≈ -0.000004`.
  So, `V_rev_net_eq ≈ 0`. This means `k_s1` should be near 0 for dS1/dt=0. But k_s1=0.01455. Contradiction.

The source terms `0 -> S` need to be balanced by sink terms `S -> 0` for a non-zero equilibrium.
This is my last attempt at a coherent model.
R1: `S1 + S2 <=> S3` (kf, kr)
R2: `0 <=> S1` (ks1f, ks1r*S1)
R3: `0 <=> S3` (ks3f, ks3r*S3)

This is getting too complicated for the remaining time. I will submit a model with one reversible reaction and one source reaction that seems most critical (S3 production).
R1: `id_j5qx + id_o483 <=> id_lti5` (kf, kr)
R2: `0 -> id_lti5` (k_source)

This will not perfectly fit, but it's a start.
kf=1, kr=0.05 (ratio = 20, close to 19.55)
Initial rate of R1: `1*0.02 - 0.05*0.55 = 0.02 - 0.0275 = -0.0075`.
S1' = -0.0075 (exp -0.00135)
S2' = -0.0075 (exp -0.01506)
S3' = +0.0075 + k_source = 0.07350 => k_source = 0.07350 - 0.0075 = 0.066.

This is a simple model. Let's try this.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml
import pandas as pd

# Model:
# R1: id_j5qx + id_o483 <=> id_lti5 (kf, kr)
# R2: 0 -> id_lti5 (k_source_lti5)

sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Remove previous R1 if it exists
existing_reaction = model.getReaction("R1")
if existing_reaction:
    model.removeReaction("R1")
existing_reaction = model.getReaction("R_source_lti5") # Name for the new reaction
if existing_reaction:
    model.removeReaction("R_source_lti5")


# Reaction 1: id_j5qx + id_o483 <=> id_lti5
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("R1_reversible")
reaction1.setReversible(True)

# Reactants for R1
r1_reactant1 = reaction1.createReactant()
r1_reactant1.setSpecies("id_j5qx")
r1_reactant1.setStoichiometry(1.0)

r1_reactant2 = reaction1.createReactant()
r1_reactant2.setSpecies("id_o483")
r1_reactant2.setStoichiometry(1.0)

# Product for R1
r1_product1 = reaction1.createProduct()
r1_product1.setSpecies("id_lti5")
r1_product1.setStoichiometry(1.0)

# Kinetic law for R1
kl_r1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
kf_r1 = kl_r1.createParameter()
kf_r1.setId("kf_R1")
kf_r1.setValue(1.0) # Parameter guess
kr_r1 = kl_r1.createParameter()
kr_r1.setId("kr_R1")
kr_r1.setValue(0.05) # kf/kr = 20, close to exp 19.55
kl_r1.setFormula("kf_R1 * id_j5qx * id_o483 - kr_R1 * id_lti5")

# Reaction 2: 0 -> id_lti5 (source for id_lti5)
reaction2 = model.createReaction()
reaction2.setId("R2_source_lti5")
reaction2.setReversible(False) # Assuming irreversible source

# Product for R2
r2_product1 = reaction2.createProduct()
r2_product1.setSpecies("id_lti5")
r2_product1.setStoichiometry(1.0)

# Kinetic law for R2
kl_r2 = reaction2.createKineticLaw()
k_s_lti5 = kl_r2.createParameter()
k_s_lti5.setId("k_source_lti5")
k_s_lti5.setValue(0.066) # Parameter guess from initial rate analysis
kl_r2.setFormula("k_source_lti5")


# Store the final model string
writer = libsbml.SBMLWriter()
final_sbml_model_attempt = writer.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)
shared_variables.add("final_sbml_attempt", final_sbml_model_attempt)
print("Constructed SBML model with R1: S1+S2 <=> S3 and R2: 0 -> S3.")
# print(final_sbml_model_attempt)

# Simulate this model
sim_data_final_attempt_df = simulate(final_sbml_model_attempt)

# Print comparison of equilibrium values
exp_data_df = experiment_history['iteration_0']

sim_eq_s1 = sim_data_final_attempt_df['id_j5qx'].iloc[-1]
sim_eq_s2 = sim_data_final_attempt_df['id_o483'].iloc[-1]
sim_eq_s3 = sim_data_final_attempt_df['id_lti5'].iloc[-1]
print(f"\nSimulated equilibrium (final attempt): S1={sim_eq_s1:.4f}, S2={sim_eq_s2:.4f}, S3={sim_eq_s3:.4f}")

exp_eq_s1 = exp_data_df['id_j5qx'].iloc[-1]
exp_eq_s2 = exp_data_df['id_o483'].iloc[-1]
exp_eq_s3 = exp_data_df['id_lti5'].iloc[-1]
print(f"Experimental equilibrium: S1={exp_eq_s1:.4f}, S2={exp_eq_s2:.4f}, S3={exp_eq_s3:.4f}")

# Print initial rates from simulation
# Need to calculate from first two points of sim_data_final_attempt_df
sim_dt = sim_data_final_attempt_df['Time'].iloc[1] - sim_data_final_attempt_df['Time'].iloc[0]
if sim_dt > 0:
    sim_S1_rate = (sim_data_final_attempt_df['id_j5qx'].iloc[1] - sim_data_final_attempt_df['id_j5qx'].iloc[0]) / sim_dt
    sim_S2_rate = (sim_data_final_attempt_df['id_o483'].iloc[1] - sim_data_final_attempt_df['id_o483'].iloc[0]) / sim_dt
    sim_S3_rate = (sim_data_final_attempt_df['id_lti5'].iloc[1] - sim_data_final_attempt_df['id_lti5'].iloc[0]) / sim_dt
    print(f"Simulated initial rates: S1'={sim_S1_rate:.5f}, S2'={sim_S2_rate:.5f}, S3'={sim_S3_rate:.5f}")
else:
    print("Cannot calculate simulated initial rates, dt is zero.")

exp_dt = exp_data_df['Time'].iloc[1] - exp_data_df['Time'].iloc[0]
exp_S1_rate = (exp_data_df['id_j5qx'].iloc[1] - exp_data_df['id_j5qx'].iloc[0]) / exp_dt
exp_S2_rate = (exp_data_df['id_o483'].iloc[1] - exp_data_df['id_o483'].iloc[0]) / exp_dt
exp_S3_rate = (exp_data_df['id_lti5'].iloc[1] - exp_data_df['id_lti5'].iloc[0]) / exp_dt
print(f"Experimental initial rates: S1'={exp_S1_rate:.5f}, S2'={exp_S2_rate:.5f}, S3'={exp_S3_rate:.5f}")

# This is likely not the true model, but it's an attempt given the complexity and time.
# I will submit this one.
final_sbml = final_sbml_model_attempt

```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Constructed SBML model with R1: S1+S2 <=> S3 and R2: 0 -> S3.

Simulated equilibrium (final attempt): S1=1.0382, S2=0.9382, S3=19.5118
Experimental equilibrium: S1=0.1064, S2=0.4543, S3=0.9450
Simulated initial rates: S1'=0.00754, S2'=0.00754, S3'=0.05846
Experimental initial rates: S1'=-0.00135, S2'=-0.01506, S3'=0.07349

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 17/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (model_v1_sbml, sim_data_v1_df, final_sbml_attempt)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 4
## Thoughts

The core issue I've been facing is the contradiction for the reaction `S1 + S2 <=> S3`:
1.  To match the experimental equilibrium `(S1e, S2e, S3e)`, the ratio `kf/kr` must be approximately `19.55`.
2.  For S1 to decrease initially (as observed: `S1' = -0.00135`), with this `kf/kr` ratio and initial concentrations `(S1_0=0.2, S2_0=0.1, S3_0=0.55)`, the reaction `S1+S2 -> S3` should be the net forward reaction. However, `kr1 * ( (kf1/kr1)*S1_0*S2_0 - S3_0 ) = kr1 * (19.549 * 0.02 - 0.55) = kr1 * (-0.15902)`. For this to be positive (net consumption of S1 by this reaction), `kr1` would have to be negative. This means, with `kf/kr=19.55`, the reaction `S1+S2 <=> S3` initially proceeds in reverse (`S3 -> S1+S2`).

This implies that if `S1+S2 <=> S3` is a reaction in the system (with `kf/kr=19.55`), then for S1 to decrease overall, there must be *another* reaction that consumes S1 more strongly than S1 is produced by `S3 -> S1+S2`.

Similarly, for S2:
Its initial rate `S2'` is -0.01506. Its equilibrium `S2e` (0.4543) is greater than `S2_0` (0.1).
A simple model `0 <=> S2` (i.e., `dS2/dt = k_prod - k_deg*S2`) leads to `k_deg*(S2e - S2_0) = S2'`.
Since `S2e - S2_0 > 0` and `S2' < 0`, this forces `k_deg < 0`, which is impossible.
This means S2's dynamics are not solely governed by a simple reversible source/sink. It must be consumed by another reaction (like `S1+S2 -> S3`) and/or its production term is more complex.

Given the consistent failure to find positive rate constants for models based on `S1+S2 <=> S3` plus simple source/sinks that match both initial rates and equilibrium, the reaction `S1+S2 <=> S3` itself might be an incorrect representation, or the system is more complex with regulatory dynamics not captured by mass-action.

I will try a perturbation experiment to gather more information. Increasing the initial concentration of S2 significantly might reveal more about its role and the coupling with S1 and S3. If S2 is a key reactant in a forward reaction, increasing it should speed up that reaction.

## Action

### Experiment
```json
{
    "action": "change_initial_concentration",
    "meta_data": {
        "id_o483": 1.0
    }
}
```
# Observation

## Experiment Result
Experiment ID: iteration_4
Your requested experiment has finished. The details results are saved as a dataframe in experiment_history[iteration_4]

Total size: 2797 rows × 4 columns. 

Below shows a subset of the table for your convenience. You should access experiment_history[iteration_4] for the full data

Time   id_j5qx  id_o483  id_lti5
0  2.00e-01 1.00e+00 5.50e-01
...
6.12e+00  2.03e-01 2.83e-01 8.55e-01
...
1.22e+01  1.96e-01 9.97e-02 9.36e-01
...
1.83e+01  1.88e-01 3.70e-02 9.59e-01
...
2.45e+01  1.79e-01 1.52e-02 9.74e-01
...
3.06e+01  1.71e-01 7.09e-03 9.85e-01
...
3.67e+01  1.64e-01 3.78e-03 9.91e-01
...
4.28e+01  1.57e-01 2.30e-03 9.95e-01
...
4.89e+01  1.50e-01 1.60e-03 9.96e-01
...
5.50e+01  1.43e-01 1.25e-03 9.97e-01
...
6.12e+01  1.37e-01 1.11e-03 9.98e-01
...
6.73e+01  1.31e-01 1.10e-03 9.98e-01
...
7.34e+01  1.25e-01 1.22e-03 9.98e-01
...
7.95e+01  1.19e-01 1.50e-03 9.98e-01
...
8.56e+01  1.14e-01 2.04e-03 9.97e-01
...
9.17e+01  1.09e-01 3.06e-03 9.96e-01
...
9.79e+01  1.04e-01 5.02e-03 9.93e-01
...
1.04e+02  9.96e-02 9.00e-03 9.89e-01
...
1.10e+02  9.52e-02 1.75e-02 9.83e-01
...
1.16e+02  9.10e-02 3.68e-02 9.73e-01
...
1.22e+02  8.70e-02 8.13e-02 9.63e-01
...
1.28e+02  8.37e-02 1.79e-01 9.54e-01
...
1.35e+02  8.17e-02 3.41e-01 9.48e-01
...
1.41e+02  8.15e-02 4.92e-01 9.46e-01
...
1.47e+02  8.26e-02 5.63e-01 9.45e-01
...
1.53e+02  8.42e-02 5.82e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.59e+02  8.59e-02 5.81e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.65e+02  8.76e-02 5.74e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.71e+02  8.93e-02 5.66e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.77e+02  9.08e-02 5.57e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.83e+02  9.23e-02 5.49e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.90e+02  9.37e-02 5.41e-01 9.44e-01
...
1.96e+02  9.50e-02 5.33e-01 9.44e-01
...
2.02e+02  9.62e-02 5.25e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.08e+02  9.73e-02 5.18e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.14e+02  9.84e-02 5.12e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.20e+02  9.94e-02 5.05e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.26e+02  1.00e-01 4.99e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.32e+02  1.01e-01 4.94e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.39e+02  1.02e-01 4.88e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.45e+02  1.03e-01 4.84e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.51e+02  1.03e-01 4.79e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.57e+02  1.04e-01 4.75e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.63e+02  1.04e-01 4.71e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.69e+02  1.05e-01 4.68e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.75e+02  1.05e-01 4.65e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.81e+02  1.05e-01 4.62e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.87e+02  1.06e-01 4.59e-01 9.45e-01
...
2.94e+02  1.06e-01 4.57e-01 9.45e-01
...
3.00e+02  1.06e-01 4.55e-01 9.45e-01

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 16/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_4)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (model_v1_sbml, sim_data_v1_df, final_sbml_attempt)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 5
## Thoughts

Let's analyze the new experimental data (iteration_4) where `id_o483` (S2) initial concentration was increased from 0.1 to 1.0. `id_j5qx` (S1) remains at 0.2, `id_lti5` (S3) at 0.55.

Original experiment (iteration_0):
Initial: S1=0.2, S2=0.1, S3=0.55
Equilibrium: S1≈0.106, S2≈0.454, S3≈0.945
Initial rates (approx): S1'≈-0.00135, S2'≈-0.01506, S3'≈+0.07350

Perturbed experiment (iteration_4):
Initial: S1=0.2, S2=1.0, S3=0.55
Equilibrium: S1≈0.106, S2≈0.455, S3≈0.945
The equilibrium concentrations are remarkably similar to the original experiment, despite a 10-fold increase in initial S2. This suggests a robust homeostatic mechanism or that the equilibrium is strongly determined by ratios and not absolute initial amounts, provided S2 is not completely depleted.

Let's look at initial rates for iteration_4:
Data points:
T=0: S1=0.2, S2=1.0, S3=0.55
T1 (first point after 0, from subset it's 6.12, but I need the actual first step from `experiment_history['iteration_4']`)
Let's assume the time steps are similar to iteration_0. The first time point after 0 in iteration_0 was 0.107296.
I will calculate this in the code.

Comparing behavior:
-   **S1 (id_j5qx)**:
    -   Original: 0.2 -> drops to ~0.08 -> eq 0.106
    -   Perturbed: 0.2 -> drops to ~0.08 -> eq 0.106. The drop seems faster initially in the perturbed case (e.g., at T=6.12, S1 is 0.203, but this is after initial dip usually). Looking at the full data will be key. The minimum S1 is reached around T=120-140 in both.
-   **S2 (id_o483)**:
    -   Original: 0.1 -> drops to near 0 -> rises to eq 0.454
    -   Perturbed: 1.0 -> drops significantly (e.g., to 0.001 at T~60) -> rises to eq 0.455. The initial drop is much larger in magnitude because it starts higher.
-   **S3 (id_lti5)**:
    -   Original: 0.55 -> rises to ~1.0 -> eq 0.945
    -   Perturbed: 0.55 -> rises to ~1.0 -> eq 0.945. The peak S3 value and timing seem similar.

The fact that the equilibrium is unchanged is very strong evidence.
This implies that the system effectively "buffers" or adjusts to the initial S2 concentration.

Let's re-evaluate the model I submitted:
R1: `S1 + S2 <=> S3` (kf=1.0, kr=0.05)
R2: `0 -> S3` (k_source_lti5=0.066)

Simulated equilibrium for this model (from previous output): S1=1.0382, S2=0.9382, S3=19.5118. This was way off.
The parameters kf, kr, k_source_lti5 were chosen to match initial rates of *original* experiment, not equilibrium.

The problem is that a simple source `0 -> S3` will lead to S3 accumulating indefinitely unless balanced by a degradation term or consumption. If `S1+S2 <=> S3` is the only consumption pathway for S3, and S1/S2 are also changing, the equilibrium will be complex.

The unchanged equilibrium despite S2 perturbation suggests that the equilibrium state `(S1e, S2e, S3e)` is a strong attractor.
If `S1+S2 <=> S3` is the main reversible reaction, then `S3e / (S1e*S2e) = K_eq = kf/kr`.
`0.945 / (0.106 * 0.454) ≈ 0.945 / 0.048124 ≈ 19.63`.
This ratio `kf/kr ≈ 19.63` must hold.

The total moles increase in both experiments.
Original: 0.85 -> 1.505
Perturbed: 0.2 + 1.0 + 0.55 = 1.75 -> 0.106 + 0.455 + 0.945 = 1.506.
Interestingly, in the perturbed case, the total moles *decrease* from 1.75 to 1.506.
This is a crucial new piece of information!

-   Experiment 0 (S2_init=0.1): Total moles increase (0.85 -> 1.506)
-   Experiment 4 (S2_init=1.0): Total moles decrease (1.75 -> 1.506)

This means the direction of net mole change depends on initial conditions.
The equilibrium total mole count is ~1.506.
If initial sum < 1.506, sum increases.
If initial sum > 1.506, sum decreases.

This points to a system trying to reach a specific total amount of material, or a balance between mole-generating and mole-consuming reactions where the equilibrium point for total moles is ~1.506.

Reactions:
1.  `S1 + S2 -> S3` (consumes 1 mole overall: 2 reactants -> 1 product)
2.  `S3 -> S1 + S2` (produces 1 mole overall: 1 reactant -> 2 products)
Let `v_fwd = kf*S1*S2` and `v_rev = kr*S3`.
Net rate of mole change from this pair: `v_rev - v_fwd`.

If these are the only reactions:
-   Exp 0: Initial sum 0.85. `v_rev - v_fwd` must be positive on average.
    Initial `S1=0.2, S2=0.1, S3=0.55`. `kr*0.55 - kf*0.02 > 0` => `kr/kf > 0.02/0.55 = 0.036`.
    So `kf/kr < 1/0.036 = 27.5`.
-   Exp 4: Initial sum 1.75. `v_rev - v_fwd` must be negative on average.
    Initial `S1=0.2, S2=1.0, S3=0.55`. `kr*0.55 - kf*0.2 < 0` => `kr/kf < 0.2/0.55 = 0.36`.
    So `kf/kr > 1/0.36 = 2.75`.

At equilibrium, `kf/kr = 19.63`.
This value (19.63) satisfies both conditions: `19.63 < 27.5` and `19.63 > 2.75`.
This is consistent! The reversible reaction `S1 + S2 <=> S3` alone can explain the direction of total mole change if its `kf/kr` is ~19.63.

Now, let's re-check the initial rates for S1, S2, S3 individually for Exp0.
If only `S1+S2 <=> S3` with `kf/kr = 19.63`. Let `kr=1, kf=19.63`.
Initial state (Exp0): S1=0.2, S2=0.1, S3=0.55.
Net reaction rate `V = kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3 = 19.63*0.2*0.1 - 1*0.55 = 19.63*0.02 - 0.55 = 0.3926 - 0.55 = -0.1574`.
This means:
S1' = -V = +0.1574 (Model predicts S1 increases) -> Exp0 S1' = -0.00135 (S1 decreases) -> MISMATCH
S2' = -V = +0.1574 (Model predicts S2 increases) -> Exp0 S2' = -0.01506 (S2 decreases) -> MISMATCH
S3' = +V = -0.1574 (Model predicts S3 decreases) -> Exp0 S3' = +0.07350 (S3 increases) -> MISMATCH

The direction of all three species' initial change is wrong with this simple model, even though the direction of *total mole change* was correctly predicted for Exp0 (net rate of mole change is `kr*S3 - kf*S1*S2 = -V = +0.1574`, so moles increase).

This implies that the actual net reaction `S1+S2 -> S3` must be initially *forward* (V > 0) to explain S1, S2 decrease and S3 increase.
If V > 0, then `kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3 > 0`.
Then `kf*0.02 - kr*0.55 > 0` => `kf/kr > 0.55/0.02 = 27.5`.
But equilibrium requires `kf/kr = 19.63`.
This is the fundamental contradiction I identified earlier. It still holds.

The fact that total moles change direction based on initial sum, and the equilibrium is robust, strongly supports `S1+S2 <=> S3` as the *only* reaction affecting total mole count.
But this reaction alone cannot explain individual species' initial rates if `kf/kr` is fixed by equilibrium.

This means there must be other reactions that are MOLE-NEUTRAL.
E.g., `S1 <=> S2`, `S1 <=> S3`, `S2 <=> S3`, or cyclic reactions like `S1->S2->S3->S1`.

Let the reactions be:
R_main: `S1 + S2 <=> S3` (kf, kr) where `kf/kr = 19.63`. This governs mole changes.
And other mole-neutral reactions.

Consider Exp0 initial rates:
S1' = -0.00135
S2' = -0.01506
S3' = +0.07350

Let `V_main = kf*S1*S2 - kr*S3`.
If `kf/kr = 19.63`, then `V_main` is initially negative (e.g., -0.1574 if kr=1).
So, contribution from R_main to initial rates:
dS1_main/dt = -V_main (positive)
dS2_main/dt = -V_main (positive)
dS3_main/dt = +V_main (negative)

This is opposite to what's needed for S1, S2, S3.
This means the mole-neutral reactions must be very strong to overcome this and produce the observed initial rates.

Let's assume `kr=1, kf=19.63`. So `V_main_init = -0.1574`.
dS1_main/dt = +0.1574
dS2_main/dt = +0.1574
dS3_main/dt = -0.1574

Observed S1' = dS1_main/dt + dS1_neutral/dt = -0.00135
  `0.1574 + dS1_neutral/dt = -0.00135` => `dS1_neutral/dt = -0.00135 - 0.1574 = -0.15875`.
Observed S2' = dS2_main/dt + dS2_neutral/dt = -0.01506
  `0.1574 + dS2_neutral/dt = -0.01506` => `dS2_neutral/dt = -0.01506 - 0.1574 = -0.17246`.
Observed S3' = dS3_main/dt + dS3_neutral/dt = +0.07350
  `-0.1574 + dS3_neutral/dt = +0.07350` => `dS3_neutral/dt = +0.07350 + 0.1574 = +0.2309`.

For mole-neutral reactions, sum of their contributions to rates must be zero:
`dS1_neutral/dt + dS2_neutral/dt + dS3_neutral/dt = 0`.
Let's check: `-0.15875 - 0.17246 + 0.2309 = -0.33121 + 0.2309 = -0.10031`.
This is NOT zero.

This means my assumption that `S1+S2 <=> S3` is the *only* reaction affecting total mole count is incorrect.
The mole change observation (increase from 0.85, decrease from 1.75, to ~1.506) is very compelling.
A system like `A <=> B` where A is 1 mole and B is 2 moles (e.g. `S_x <=> S_y + S_z`) would have an equilibrium total mole count that depends on Keq and initial amounts.

What if the system is simply `S1 + S2 <=> S3` and my initial rate calculations or interpretations are flawed for such a stiff system? Or the `simulate` function has specific behavior for the first few steps? Unlikely. The experimental rates are what they are.

The contradiction `kf/kr` from equilibrium vs `kf/kr` from initial S1,S2,S3 direction is the core puzzle.
The new data (total moles decreasing for high S2_init) strongly supports `S1+S2 <=> S3` as being a key reaction whose forward direction consumes moles and reverse produces moles, and the equilibrium `kf/kr` is around 19.63.

If this reaction `S1+S2 <=> S3` is indeed dominant for mole changes, and its `kf/kr` is fixed at ~19.63, then its initial contribution to S1', S2', S3' for Exp0 is:
S1' = +k, S2' = +k, S3' = -k (where k is some positive value, e.g. 0.1574 if kr=1).
To get the observed initial rates:
S1_obs' = -0.00135 (needs strong negative contribution from other reactions)
S2_obs' = -0.01506 (needs strong negative contribution)
S3_obs' = +0.07350 (needs strong positive contribution)

Let the "other reactions" be R_other.
S1' = k + S1'_other = -0.00135 => S1'_other = -0.00135 - k
S2' = k + S2'_other = -0.01506 => S2'_other = -0.01506 - k
S3' = -k + S3'_other = +0.07350 => S3'_other = +0.07350 + k

Sum of S_i'_other = `(-0.00135-k) + (-0.01506-k) + (0.07350+k)`
                  `= 0.05709 - k`.
If R_other is mole-neutral, this sum must be 0. So `k = 0.05709`.
This `k` is the magnitude of the initial rate of `S3 -> S1+S2` (since V_main was negative).
So, `kr*S3_0 - kf*S1_0*S2_0 = k = 0.05709`.
With `S1_0=0.2, S2_0=0.1, S3_0=0.55`:
`kr*0.55 - kf*0.02 = 0.05709`.
We also have `kf/kr = 19.63` (from equilibrium). So `kf = 19.63 kr`.
`kr*0.55 - (19.63 kr)*0.02 = 0.05709`
`kr*0.55 - 0.3926*kr = 0.05709`
`0.1574*kr = 0.05709`
`kr = 0.05709 / 0.1574 ≈ 0.3627`.
Then `kf = 19.63 * 0.3627 ≈ 7.119`.
These are positive rate constants. This is a breakthrough!

So, the hypothesis is:
1.  Main reaction: `R_main: S1 + S2 <=> S3` with `kf=7.119, kr=0.3627`.
    Its initial rate contribution (Exp0):
    `V_main = kf*S1_0*S2_0 - kr*S3_0 = 7.119*0.02 - 0.3627*0.55 = 0.14238 - 0.199485 = -0.057105`.
    So, dS1_main/dt = +0.057105, dS2_main/dt = +0.057105, dS3_main/dt = -0.057105.
    (This `k` is `abs(V_main) = 0.057105`, consistent with `k=0.05709` derived above).

2.  Other reactions (R_other, mole-neutral) contribute:
    S1'_other = S1_obs' - dS1_main/dt = -0.00135 - 0.057105 = -0.058455
    S2'_other = S2_obs' - dS2_main/dt = -0.01506 - 0.057105 = -0.072165
    S3'_other = S3_obs' - dS3_main/dt = +0.07350 - (-0.057105) = +0.07350 + 0.057105 = +0.130605
    Sum check: `-0.058455 - 0.072165 + 0.130605 = -0.13062 + 0.130605 ≈ 0`. (Good, consistent with mole-neutral).

Now we need to find mole-neutral reactions that give these S_i'_other rates.
Simplest mole-neutral reactions are conversions: `S_i <=> S_j`.
Consider:
R_A: `S1 <=> S2` (kfA, krA). Net rate `vA = kfA*S1 - krA*S2`.
  dS1A = -vA, dS2A = +vA, dS3A = 0
R_B: `S2 <=> S3` (kfB, krB). Net rate `vB = kfB*S2 - krB*S3`.
  dS1B = 0, dS2B = -vB, dS3B = +vB
R_C: `S1 <=> S3` (kfC, krC). Net rate `vC = kfC*S1 - krC*S3`.
  dS1C = -vC, dS2C = 0, dS3C = +vC

Then:
S1'_other = -vA_init - vC_init = -0.058455
S2'_other = +vA_init - vB_init = -0.072165
S3'_other = +vB_init + vC_init = +0.130605

This is 3 equations for 3 initial net rates vA_init, vB_init, vC_init.
(1) `-vA - vC = -0.058455`
(2) ` vA - vB = -0.072165`
(3) `      vB + vC = +0.130605`
Add all three: `0 = -0.058455 - 0.072165 + 0.130605 = -0.13062 + 0.130605 ≈ 0`. Consistent.

From (2), `vA = vB - 0.072165`.
Substitute into (1): `-(vB - 0.072165) - vC = -0.058455`
  `-vB + 0.072165 - vC = -0.058455`
  `-vB - vC = -0.058455 - 0.072165 = -0.13062`
  `vB + vC = 0.13062`. This is identical to (3). So the system is not fully determined for vA, vB, vC. We have 2 independent equations for 3 variables.
This means we can set one of them, or use Occam's razor (e.g., only two of these reactions exist).

If vC_init = 0 (i.e., reaction `S1 <=> S3` is negligible initially or slower):
  Then `vB_init = 0.130605`.
  `vA_init = vB_init - 0.072165 = 0.130605 - 0.072165 = 0.05844`.
  Check (1): `-vA_init = -0.05844`. This matches `-0.058455` closely.

So, a possible model:
R_main: `S1 + S2 <=> S3` (`kf_main=7.119, kr_main=0.3627`)
R_A: `S1 -> S2` (mole-neutral, `kfA`). (Assume irreversible for simplicity, or krA is small)
  Initial rate `vA_init = kfA*S1_0 = kfA*0.2 = 0.05844` => `kfA = 0.05844 / 0.2 = 0.2922`.
R_B: `S3 -> S2` (mole-neutral, `krB`). (Reversed S2<=>S3, assume irreversible for simplicity)
  Initial rate `vB_init` (for `S2->S3`) was `0.130605`. So if reaction is `S3 -> S2`, its rate is `-vB_init`.
  This is confusing. Let's define R_B as `S2 -> S3`. So `vB_init = kfB*S2_0 - krB*S3_0 = 0.130605`.
  If we assume `S2 -> S3` (kfB_fwd) and `S3 -> S2` (kfB_rev):
  `vB = kfB_fwd * S2_0 - kfB_rev * S3_0 = 0.130605`.
  `vB = kfB_fwd * 0.1 - kfB_rev * 0.55 = 0.130605`.

This is becoming a parameter fitting exercise.
The key insight is that `S1+S2 <=> S3` (with kf/kr ~19.63) combined with mole-neutral reactions is a viable hypothesis.

Let's test the simplest version:
Model Hypothesis "Phoenix":
1.  `S1 + S2 <=> S3` (kf_M = 7.119, kr_M = 0.3627)
2.  `S1 -> S2` (k_12) (This is R_A, `vA = k_12*S1`)
    S1'_other = -k_12*S1_0 = -0.058455 => `k_12*0.2 = 0.058455` => `k_12 = 0.292275`.
3.  `S3 -> S2` (k_32) (This is reverse of R_B, `vB_rev = k_32*S3`)
    S3'_other = -k_32*S3_0 (if S3 is consumed) + ...
    S2'_other = +k_12*S1_0 + k_32*S3_0 = -0.072165 (This is wrong, S2 is product of k_12*S1 and k_32*S3)
    S3'_other = -k_32*S3_0 = ...

Let's use the net rates `vA, vB, vC`.
vA_init = `kfA*S1_0 - krA*S2_0 = 0.05844` (Net S1->S2 flux)
vB_init = `kfB*S2_0 - krB*S3_0 = 0.130605` (Net S2->S3 flux)
vC_init = 0 (Assume S1<=>S3 is not active)

So, the mole-neutral part is:
`S1 -> S2` (rate `vA_init = 0.05844`)
`S2 -> S3` (rate `vB_init = 0.130605`)

This means:
S1 is consumed by `S1->S2`. S1'_other = -vA_init = -0.05844. (Matches)
S2 is produced by `S1->S2`, consumed by `S2->S3`. S2'_other = vA_init - vB_init = 0.05844 - 0.130605 = -0.072165. (Matches)
S3 is produced by `S2->S3`. S3'_other = vB_init = 0.130605. (Matches)

So, the reactions could be:
R_main: `S1 + S2 <=> S3` (kf_M=7.119, kr_M=0.3627)
R_12: `S1 -> S2` (k_12_f * S1)
R_23: `S2 -> S3` (k_23_f * S2)

To get the rates:
`k_12_f * S1_0 = 0.05844` => `k_12_f * 0.2 = 0.05844` => `k_12_f = 0.2922`.
`k_23_f * S2_0 = 0.130605` => `k_23_f * 0.1 = 0.130605` => `k_23_f = 1.30605`.

Model "Phoenix-A":
1.  `id_j5qx + id_o483 <=> id_lti5` (kf1=7.119, kr1=0.3627)
2.  `id_j5qx -> id_o483` (k2=0.2922)
3.  `id_o483 -> id_lti5` (k3=1.30605)

Let's check this model.
It has 3 reactions, 4 parameters. All parameters are positive.
It matches initial rates for Exp0 by construction.
It has `kf1/kr1 = 19.63`, so it should achieve the correct equilibrium ratios for R1.
However, R2 and R3 are irreversible. This will push all S1 to S2, and all S2 to S3 over long time, unless S3 can go back to S1/S2 via R1.
At equilibrium:
dS1/dt = `-kf1*S1e*S2e + kr1*S3e - k2*S1e = 0`
dS2/dt = `-kf1*S1e*S2e + kr1*S3e + k2*S1e - k3*S2e = 0`
dS3/dt = `+kf1*S1e*S2e - kr1*S3e + k3*S2e = 0`

From dS1/dt=0: `kr1*S3e = kf1*S1e*S2e + k2*S1e`.
Substitute into dS3/dt=0: `-(kf1*S1e*S2e) + (kf1*S1e*S2e + k2*S1e) + k3*S2e = 0`
  `k2*S1e + k3*S2e = 0`.
Since S1e, S2e are positive, and k2, k3 are positive, this can only be true if `k2=0` and `k3=0`, or `S1e=0, S2e=0`.
This means this model (Phoenix-A) will result in S1e=0, S2e=0, and all material ending up as S3 (or S3 also depleting if it degrades). This is not the observed equilibrium.

The mole-neutral reactions R_A, R_B, R_C must also be reversible and reach their own equilibria.
R_A: `S1 <=> S2` (kfA, krA). At eq: `kfA*S1e = krA*S2e`. So `kfA/krA = S2e/S1e = 0.454/0.106 ≈ 4.283`.
R_B: `S2 <=> S3` (kfB, krB). At eq: `kfB*S2e = krB*S3e`. So `kfB/krB = S3e/S2e = 0.945/0.454 ≈ 2.0815`.
R_C: `S1 <=> S3` (kfC, krC). At eq: `kfC*S1e = krC*S3e`. So `kfC/krC = S3e/S1e = 0.945/0.106 ≈ 8.915`.

Now we have:
vA_init = `kfA*0.2 - krA*0.1 = 0.05844`. And `kfA = 4.283*krA`.
  `(4.283*krA)*0.2 - krA*0.1 = 0.05844`
  `0.8566*krA - 0.1*krA = 0.05844`
  `0.7566*krA = 0.05844` => `krA ≈ 0.07724`. `kfA ≈ 4.283 * 0.07724 ≈ 0.3308`.

vB_init = `kfB*0.1 - krB*0.55 = 0.130605`. And `kfB = 2.0815*krB`.
  `(2.0815*krB)*0.1 - krB*0.55 = 0.130605`
  `0.20815*krB - 0.55*krB = 0.130605`
  `-0.34185*krB = 0.130605` => `krB ≈ -0.38209`. Rate constant cannot be negative.

This means the choice of vC_init = 0 was problematic, or the direction of net flux for vB was wrong.
vB_init was net S2->S3. If krB is negative, it means the reaction `S2 <=> S3` with `kfB/krB` fixed by equilibrium would flow S3->S2 initially.
Net flux `kfB*S2 - krB*S3`. If `krB` is negative, let `krB_abs = -krB`. Then `kfB = -2.0815*krB_abs`. `kfB` also negative.
This means the equilibrium ratio `S3e/S2e` cannot be achieved by this reaction if it also has to provide the initial flux `vB_init = 0.130605`.

This is very tricky. The system of equations for `vA, vB, vC` has one degree of freedom.
Perhaps one of the reactions is dominant or simpler.
What if only R_A (`S1<=>S2`) and R_B (`S2<=>S3`) exist? (vC=0)
Then `vA_init = 0.05844`, `vB_init = 0.130605`.
This led to negative krB.

What if only R_A (`S1<=>S2`) and R_C (`S1<=>S3`) exist? (vB=0)
  `vA - vC = -0.058455` (from `-vA-vC = S1'_other`)
  `vA = -0.072165` (from `vA-vB = S2'_other` with vB=0)
  `vC = +0.130605` (from `vB+vC = S3'_other` with vB=0)
Check consistency: `vA - vC = -0.072165 - 0.130605 = -0.20277`. This should be -0.058455. Inconsistent.

What if only R_B (`S2<=>S3`) and R_C (`S1<=>S3`) exist? (vA=0)
  `-vC = -0.058455` => `vC = 0.058455`
  `-vB = -0.072165` => `vB = 0.072165`
  `vB+vC = 0.072165 + 0.058455 = 0.13062`. This matches `S3'_other = 0.130605`. Consistent!

So, the mole-neutral part could be:
R_B: `S2 <=> S3` with initial net flux `vB_init = 0.072165` (S2->S3).
R_C: `S1 <=> S3` with initial net flux `vC_init = 0.058455` (S1->S3).

Now, derive rate constants for these:
For R_B: `S2 <=> S3`. `kfB/krB = S3e/S2e = 2.0815`. `vB_init = kfB*0.1 - krB*0.55 = 0.072165`.
  `kfB = 2.0815*krB`.
  `(2.0815*krB)*0.1 - krB*0.55 = 0.072165`
  `0.20815*krB - 0.55*krB = 0.072165`
  `-0.34185*krB = 0.072165` => `krB = -0.2111`. Still negative.

The problem is that the required initial flux direction (e.g. S2->S3 for vB) might be opposite to what the equilibrium concentrations dictate for that specific reversible reaction.
E.g. for `S2 <=> S3`: `Q = S3_0/S2_0 = 0.55/0.1 = 5.5`. `Keq = S3e/S2e = 2.0815`.
Since `Q > Keq`, the reaction `S2 <=> S3` should spontaneously proceed as `S3 -> S2` (i.e. vB should be negative).
But we need `vB_init = 0.072165` (positive, S2->S3). This is a contradiction.

This means the entire premise of "R_main + mole_neutral_reversible_conversions" is flawed if the mole_neutral reactions must also individually satisfy the final equilibrium ratios.

Perhaps the "other" reactions are not simple reversible conversions.
Maybe they are enzyme-driven with different kinetics, or one species is a catalyst for conversion of another.
E.g. `S1 + S3 -> S2 + S3` (S3 catalyzes S1->S2). This is `S1 -> S2` with rate `k*S1*S3`.

Let's reconsider the initial rates for Exp4 (S1=0.2, S2=1.0, S3=0.55).
I need to calculate these from the data.

This problem is harder than it looks. The consistency across two experiments is key.
The model `S1+S2 <=> S3` with `kf=7.119, kr=0.3627` correctly predicts the direction of total mole change for both experiments:
Exp0: S1=0.2,S2=0.1,S3=0.55. `V_main = -0.0571`. Mole change `-V_main = +0.0571` (increase). Correct.
Exp4: S1=0.2,S2=1.0,S3=0.55. `V_main = 7.119*0.2*1.0 - 0.3627*0.55 = 1.4238 - 0.199485 = +1.2243`. Mole change `-V_main = -1.2243` (decrease). Correct.

This is very strong support for this part of the model and these parameters.
The issue is the individual species rates.
The "other" reactions must be responsible for the discrepancy AND be mole-neutral overall.

Let's try to submit the model with just `S1 + S2 <=> S3` (kf=7.119, kr=0.3627) and see how badly it performs. It will get the equilibrium ratios right for these three species if they are only connected by this, and the total mole change direction right. But initial individual rates will be off.

## Action

### Code
```python
import libsbml
import pandas as pd

# Load data from the new experiment (iteration_4)
exp_data_df_iter4 = experiment_history['iteration_4']

# Calculate initial rates for iteration_4
dt_iter4 = exp_data_df_iter4['Time'].iloc[1] - exp_data_df_iter4['Time'].iloc[0]
s1_rate_iter4 = (exp_data_df_iter4['id_j5qx'].iloc[1] - exp_data_df_iter4['id_j5qx'].iloc[0]) / dt_iter4
s2_rate_iter4 = (exp_data_df_iter4['id_o483'].iloc[1] - exp_data_df_iter4['id_o483'].iloc[0]) / dt_iter4
s3_rate_iter4 = (exp_data_df_iter4['id_lti5'].iloc[1] - exp_data_df_iter4['id_lti5'].iloc[0]) / dt_iter4

print("Initial experimental rates for Iteration 4 (S2_init=1.0):")
print(f"S1' (id_j5qx): {s1_rate_iter4:.5f}")
print(f"S2' (id_o483): {s2_rate_iter4:.5f}")
print(f"S3' (id_lti5): {s3_rate_iter4:.5f}")

# Proposed model: S1 + S2 <=> S3 with kf=7.119, kr=0.3627
# This was derived to match equilibrium S3e/(S1e*S2e) and total mole change direction for Exp0.
# And also made sum of S_i_other_rates = 0.

sbml_doc = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model = sbml_doc.getModel()

# Remove previous reactions if any
if model.getNumReactions() > 0:
    for i in range(model.getNumReactions() -1, -1, -1): # Iterate backwards for removal
        model.removeReaction(model.getReaction(i).getId())
    print(f"Removed {model.getNumReactions()} reactions before adding new ones.") # Should be 0 now

# Reaction 1: id_j5qx + id_o483 <=> id_lti5
reaction1 = model.createReaction()
reaction1.setId("R_main")
reaction1.setReversible(True)

# Reactants
r1_reactant1 = reaction1.createReactant()
r1_reactant1.setSpecies("id_j5qx")
r1_reactant1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
r1_reactant2 = reaction1.createReactant()
r1_reactant2.setSpecies("id_o483")
r1_reactant2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
# Product
r1_product1 = reaction1.createProduct()
r1_product1.setSpecies("id_lti5")
r1_product1.setStoichiometry(1.0)

# Kinetic law
kl_r1 = reaction1.createKineticLaw()
kf_r1 = kl_r1.createParameter()
kf_r1.setId("kf_R_main")
kf_r1.setValue(7.119)
kr_r1 = kl_r1.createParameter()
kr_r1.setId("kr_R_main")
kr_r1.setValue(0.3627)
kl_r1.setFormula("kf_R_main * id_j5qx * id_o483 - kr_R_main * id_lti5")

# Store and simulate this model
current_model_sbml = libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc)
shared_variables.add("model_phoenix_minimal_sbml", current_model_sbml)
print("\nConstructed SBML model with only R_main: S1+S2 <=> S3 (kf=7.119, kr=0.3627).")

sim_data_minimal_df = simulate(current_model_sbml)
print("\nSimulation results for this minimal model (equilibrium):")
print(sim_data_minimal_df.tail())

# Check initial rates from this model for Exp0 conditions (default initial concentrations)
# S1=0.2, S2=0.1, S3=0.55
v_main_exp0 = 7.119 * 0.2 * 0.1 - 0.3627 * 0.55
# v_main_exp0 = 0.14238 - 0.199485 = -0.057105
s1_rate_model_exp0 = -v_main_exp0
s2_rate_model_exp0 = -v_main_exp0
s3_rate_model_exp0 = v_main_exp0
print("\nCalculated initial rates for this model (Exp0 conditions):")
print(f"S1': {s1_rate_model_exp0:.5f}")
print(f"S2': {s2_rate_model_exp0:.5f}")
print(f"S3': {s3_rate_model_exp0:.5f}")

exp_data_df_iter0 = experiment_history['iteration_0']
dt_iter0 = exp_data_df_iter0['Time'].iloc[1] - exp_data_df_iter0['Time'].iloc[0]
s1_rate_iter0 = (exp_data_df_iter0['id_j5qx'].iloc[1] - exp_data_df_iter0['id_j5qx'].iloc[0]) / dt_iter0
s2_rate_iter0 = (exp_data_df_iter0['id_o483'].iloc[1] - exp_data_df_iter0['id_o483'].iloc[0]) / dt_iter0
s3_rate_iter0 = (exp_data_df_iter0['id_lti5'].iloc[1] - exp_data_df_iter0['id_lti5'].iloc[0]) / dt_iter0
print(f"Experimental initial rates (Exp0): S1'={s1_rate_iter0:.5f}, S2'={s2_rate_iter0:.5f}, S3'={s3_rate_iter0:.5f}")


# Check initial rates from this model for Exp4 conditions
# S1=0.2, S2=1.0, S3=0.55
v_main_exp4 = 7.119 * 0.2 * 1.0 - 0.3627 * 0.55
# v_main_exp4 = 1.4238 - 0.199485 = 1.224315
s1_rate_model_exp4 = -v_main_exp4
s2_rate_model_exp4 = -v_main_exp4
s3_rate_model_exp4 = v_main_exp4
print("\nCalculated initial rates for this model (Exp4 conditions):")
print(f"S1': {s1_rate_model_exp4:.5f}")
print(f"S2': {s2_rate_model_exp4:.5f}")
print(f"S3': {s3_rate_model_exp4:.5f}")
print("(Experimental rates for Exp4 printed above)")

# This model alone is insufficient for individual rates, but good for total mole change and Keq.
# The next step would be to add mole-neutral reactions.
# Given the failure to find positive parameters for S_i <=> S_j type reactions that fit both
# initial flux and equilibrium, this is still problematic.

# For submission, I need a complete model.
# The previous analysis for mole-neutral reactions (vA, vB, vC) showed that
# vA=0 (S1<=>S2 not active), vB=0.072165 (S2->S3), vC=0.058455 (S1->S3) was a consistent set.
# R_B: S2 -> S3 (k_23 * S2). k_23 * 0.1 = 0.072165 => k_23 = 0.72165
# R_C: S1 -> S3 (k_13 * S1). k_13 * 0.2 = 0.058455 => k_13 = 0.292275

# Let's try Model "Phoenix-B":
# 1. R_main: S1 + S2 <=> S3 (kf1=7.119, kr1=0.3627)
# 2. R_13: S1 -> S3 (k_13 = 0.292275 * S1)
# 3. R_23: S2 -> S3 (k_23 = 0.72165 * S2)

# Re-create model for Phoenix-B
model_B = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string).getModel() # Fresh model object
# R_main (already defined and added to `model` object, let's assume we use that one)
# For clarity, let's redefine everything for the submission model.

sbml_doc_final = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model_final = sbml_doc_final.getModel()

# R_main
reaction_M = model_final.createReaction()
reaction_M.setId("R_main")
reaction_M.setReversible(True)
rM_r1 = reaction_M.createReactant(); rM_r1.setSpecies("id_j5qx"); rM_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
rM_r2 = reaction_M.createReactant(); rM_r2.setSpecies("id_o483"); rM_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
rM_p1 = reaction_M.createProduct();  rM_p1.setSpecies("id_lti5"); rM_p1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
kl_M = reaction_M.createKineticLaw()
kf_M = kl_M.createParameter(); kf_M.setId("kf_M"); kf_M.setValue(7.119)
kr_M = kl_M.createParameter(); kr_M.setId("kr_M"); kr_M.setValue(0.3627)
kl_M.setFormula("kf_M * id_j5qx * id_o483 - kr_M * id_lti5")

# R_13: S1 -> S3
reaction_13 = model_final.createReaction()
reaction_13.setId("R_S1_to_S3")
reaction_13.setReversible(False)
r13_r1 = reaction_13.createReactant(); r13_r1.setSpecies("id_j5qx"); r13_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
r13_p1 = reaction_13.createProduct();  r13_p1.setSpecies("id_lti5"); r13_p1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
kl_13 = reaction_13.createKineticLaw()
k_13 = kl_13.createParameter(); k_13.setId("k_13"); k_13.setValue(0.292275)
kl_13.setFormula("k_13 * id_j5qx")

# R_23: S2 -> S3
reaction_23 = model_final.createReaction()
reaction_23.setId("R_S2_to_S3")
reaction_23.setReversible(False)
r23_r1 = reaction_23.createReactant(); r23_r1.setSpecies("id_o483"); r23_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
r23_p1 = reaction_23.createProduct();  r23_p1.setSpecies("id_lti5"); r23_p1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
kl_23 = reaction_23.createKineticLaw()
k_23 = kl_23.createParameter(); k_23.setId("k_23"); k_23.setValue(0.72165)
kl_23.setFormula("k_23 * id_o483")

final_sbml = libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_final)
print("\nFinal proposed model (Phoenix-B) SBML generated.")
# This model will have S1e=0, S2e=0 at true equilibrium due to irreversible reactions.
# However, it's constructed to match initial rates of Exp0.
# It's a compromise.
```
# Observation

## Code Stdout
Initial experimental rates for Iteration 4 (S2_init=1.0):
S1' (id_j5qx): 0.00242
S2' (id_o483): -0.29898
S3' (id_lti5): 0.07129

Constructed SBML model with only R_main: S1+S2 <=> S3 (kf=7.119, kr=0.3627).

Simulation results for this minimal model (equilibrium):
       id_j5qx   id_o483   id_lti5        Time
2792  0.221535  0.121535  0.528465  299.570815
2793  0.221535  0.121535  0.528465  299.678112
2794  0.221535  0.121535  0.528465  299.785408
2795  0.221535  0.121535  0.528465  299.892704
2796  0.221535  0.121535  0.528465  300.000000

Calculated initial rates for this model (Exp0 conditions):
S1': 0.05711
S2': 0.05711
S3': -0.05711
Experimental initial rates (Exp0): S1'=-0.00135, S2'=-0.01506, S3'=0.07349

Calculated initial rates for this model (Exp4 conditions):
S1': -1.22431
S2': -1.22431
S3': 1.22431
(Experimental rates for Exp4 printed above)

Final proposed model (Phoenix-B) SBML generated.

## Reminder

 ### Remaining Iterations for Interactions:
- Iterations: 15/20



### Available Global Variables
- `input_sbml_string`: Original incomplete model
- `experiment_history`: Results from all previous experiments (iteration_0, iteration_4)
- `shared_variables`: all variables you have saved from the previous iterations. (model_v1_sbml, sim_data_v1_df, final_sbml_attempt, model_phoenix_minimal_sbml)

### Allowed libraires
['numpy', 'pandas', 'libsbml', 'math', 'scipy', 'jax', 'sklearn', 'io', 'traceback']


Please construct your response according to the thoughts-action markdown format.



# Iteration 6
## Thoughts

The "Phoenix-B" model was constructed based on:
1.  R_main: `S1 + S2 <=> S3` (kf1=7.119, kr1=0.3627). This reaction and its parameters were derived to match the equilibrium constant `K_eq ≈ 19.63` and to ensure the direction of total mole number change was correct for both Exp0 and Exp4.
    -   Exp0 initial `V_main = -0.057105`. So dS1_main/dt = +0.057105, dS2_main/dt = +0.057105, dS3_main/dt = -0.057105.
2.  Mole-neutral reactions to correct the individual species' initial rates for Exp0:
    -   Observed S1' (Exp0) = -0.00135. Needed S1'_other = -0.00135 - 0.057105 = -0.058455.
    -   Observed S2' (Exp0) = -0.01506. Needed S2'_other = -0.01506 - 0.057105 = -0.072165.
    -   Observed S3' (Exp0) = +0.07350. Needed S3'_other = +0.07350 - (-0.057105) = +0.130605.
    -   This led to choosing R_13: `S1 -> S3` (k_13 * S1) and R_23: `S2 -> S3` (k_23 * S2) as the mole-neutral components.
        -   S1'_other = - (rate of S1->S3) = -v_13_init
        -   S2'_other = - (rate of S2->S3) = -v_23_init
        -   S3'_other = + (rate of S1->S3) + (rate of S2->S3) = v_13_init + v_23_init
        -   So, `v_13_init = 0.058455`. `k_13 = v_13_init / S1_0 = 0.058455 / 0.2 = 0.292275`.
        -   And `v_23_init = 0.072165`. `k_23 = v_23_init / S2_0 = 0.072165 / 0.1 = 0.72165`.
        -   Check S3'_other: `0.058455 + 0.072165 = 0.13062`. Matches.

So, Phoenix-B model is:
1.  `S1 + S2 <=> S3` (kf_M=7.119, kr_M=0.3627)
2.  `S1 -> S3` (k_13=0.292275)
3.  `S2 -> S3` (k_23=0.72165)

This model is designed to match Exp0 initial rates perfectly by construction.
However, the irreversible reactions R_13 and R_23 mean that at true steady state, S1 and S2 will be depleted (S1e=0, S2e=0), and all material will flow to S3. This does not match the observed experimental equilibrium (S1e=0.106, S2e=0.454, S3e=0.945).

The simulation output for the "minimal model" (only R_main) showed equilibrium S1=0.22, S2=0.12, S3=0.52. This is also not matching the experimental equilibrium.
The K_eq for R_main is `7.119/0.3627 = 19.627`.
Experimental K_eq is `0.945 / (0.106 * 0.454) = 19.63`. This matches.
So, if R_main is the *only* reaction, the equilibrium should be `S3e/(S1e*S2e) = 19.627`.
The simulation of R_main alone gave S3e/(S1e*S2e) = `0.528465 / (0.221535 * 0.121535) = 0.528465 / 0.026925 = 19.627`. This is correct for that model.
The reason this equilibrium (0.22, 0.12, 0.52) doesn't match the experimental one (0.106, 0.454, 0.945) is that the total amount of S1+S2+S3 is conserved by R_main if S1, S2, S3 are interconverted.
Initial sum (Exp0) = 0.2+0.1+0.55 = 0.85.
The R_main simulation equilibrium sum = 0.221+0.121+0.528 = 0.87. (Slight difference due to rounding or simulation details, but should be conserved).
Experimental equilibrium sum = 1.506.

This means R_main alone cannot explain the increase in total moles from 0.85 to 1.506.
My derivation of kf_M and kr_M relied on the idea that R_main was responsible for the mole changes, and that `kr*S3_0 - kf*S1_0*S2_0 = 0.05709` (the initial rate of change of total moles for Exp0).
Let's re-verify this:
Initial d(Sum)/dt for Exp0 = S1'+S2'+S3' = -0.00135 -0.01506 + 0.07350 = 0.05709.
For R_main, d(Sum)/dt = `(-V_main) + (-V_main) + V_main = -V_main = kr*S3 - kf*S1*S2`.
So, `kr*0.55 - kf*0.02 = 0.05709`. This equation was used to derive kf, kr.
This is correct. So R_main with these parameters *does* produce the correct initial total mole change for Exp0.

Why does the simulation of R_main alone not reach the experimental equilibrium (0.106, 0.454, 0.945) which sums to 1.506?
Because the simulation starts with initial concentrations summing to 0.85. If R_main is the only reaction, it changes S1, S2, S3 but the *weighted sum* based on stoichiometry that reflects atoms/moieties should be conserved.
For `S1+S2 <=> S3`:
Let x be the extent of reaction for `S1+S2 -> S3`.
S1 = S1_0 - x
S2 = S2_0 - x
S3 = S3_0 + x
Sum = S1_0+S2_0+S3_0 - x.
If x is positive (forward reaction), sum decreases. If x is negative (reverse reaction), sum increases.
The simulation of R_main alone (kf=7.119, kr=0.3627) for Exp0:
Initial V_main = -0.057105. This means x is initially negative (reverse reaction S3->S1+S2 is stronger).
So sum should increase. S1_0+S2_0+S3_0 - (-|x|) = Sum_0 + |x|.
The simulation equilibrium (0.22, 0.12, 0.52) sums to 0.87. This is an increase from 0.85.
But it doesn't reach 1.506.

This means that the model `S1+S2 <=> S3` alone, even with parameters that explain the initial rate of total mole change, cannot by itself change the total number of moles to a *different target value* unless the definition of "total moles" is tricky or there's an implicit assumption about a conserved moiety that I'm missing.
The reaction `S1+S2 <=> S3` changes the number of free molecules.
If it reaches equilibrium, the final sum S1e+S2e+S3e depends on S1_0, S2_0, S3_0 and K_eq. It doesn't target a specific sum like 1.506 independently of initial total.

The observation that Exp0 (sum 0.85 -> 1.506) and Exp4 (sum 1.75 -> 1.506) both go to an equilibrium sum of ~1.506 is extremely important.
This implies a mechanism that regulates the total amount of S1+S2+S3 to be around 1.506.
This cannot be achieved by `S1+S2 <=> S3` alone.
There must be source/sink reactions that are not simply `S_i -> S_j`.
E.g. `0 -> S_k` (source) and `S_l -> 0` (sink).

Let's reconsider the simplest model that targets a sum:
`0 <=> Sum` where Sum is S1+S2+S3. This is not a standard reaction.
Or, `0 -> S_i` and `S_j -> 0`.
If the system tries to maintain `S1+S2+S3 = K_target_sum`.

Let's assume the equilibrium (0.106, 0.454, 0.945) is a true, stable equilibrium.
And `S1+S2 <=> S3` is one reaction. `K_eq1 = S3e/(S1e*S2e) = 19.63`.
The mole-neutral reactions R_13 (`S1->S3`) and R_23 (`S2->S3`) in Phoenix-B are irreversible, which is why they lead to S1e=0, S2e=0.
They must be reversible:
R_13_rev: `S1 <=> S3` (k_13f, k_13r). `K_eq13 = S3e/S1e = 0.945/0.106 = 8.915`.
R_23_rev: `S2 <=> S3` (k_23f, k_23r). `K_eq23 = S3e/S2e = 0.945/0.454 = 2.0815`.

Model "Phoenix-C":
1.  `S1 + S2 <=> S3` (kf_M, kr_M) with `kf_M/kr_M = 19.63`.
2.  `S1 <=> S3` (k_13f, k_13r) with `k_13f/k_13r = 8.915`.
3.  `S2 <=> S3` (k_23f, k_23r) with `k_23f/k_23r = 2.0815`.

This system has 3 reversible reactions. At equilibrium, all 3 must be balanced.
Note that these 3 Keq are not independent: `K_eq1 * K_eq13_rev * K_eq23_rev = K_eq1 * (S1e/S3e) * (S2e/S3e) = (S3e/(S1e*S2e)) * (S1e/S3e) * (S2e/S3e) = S3e/(S1e*S2e) * S1e*S2e / S3e^2 = 1/S3e`. This is not 1.
The reactions are:
1) S1+S2=S3
2) S1=S3  (or S3=S1)
3) S2=S3  (or S3=S2)
If (2) is S3=S1 and (3) is S3=S2, then substituting into (1) gives S3 = S3. This means the reactions are linearly dependent. Only two of these are independent.
For example, if `S1 <=> S3` and `S2 <=> S3` are at equilibrium, then `S1 = S3/K_eq13` and `S2 = S3/K_eq23`.
Then `S1+S2 <=> S3` implies `S3/K_eq13 + S3/K_eq23 <=> S3`. This doesn't make sense as a third independent reaction determining K_eq1.
The K_eq values are related: `K_eq1 = K_eq13 / K_eq23_rev = K_eq13 * K_eq23` if K_eq23_rev is for S3->S2.
`K_eq1 = (S3e/S1e)`. `K_eq_S2_S1 = K_eq_S3_S1 / K_eq_S3_S2 = (S3e/S1e) / (S3e/S2e) = S2e/S1e`.
The three reactions `S1+S2<=>S3`, `S1<=>S3`, `S2<=>S3` form a cycle. The equilibrium constants must satisfy `K_eq(S1+S2<=>S3) = K_eq(S1<=>S3) * K_eq(S2<=>S3_from_S1_perspective)` which is not simple.
It's `K1 = K_C / K_B` if K1 is S1+S2=S3, KC is S1=S3, KB is S2=S3.
`S3e/(S1e S2e) = (S3e/S1e) / (S3e/S2e) = S2e/S1e`. This is not true.
`S3e/(S1e S2e)` vs `S2e/S1e`.
`19.63` vs `0.454/0.106 = 4.283`. Not equal.

So, a set of 3 such reversible reactions is overdetermined or their Keqs are miscalculated if all must hold.
Usually, one chooses two independent reactions, e.g. `S1<=>S3` and `S2<=>S3`. Then `S1+S2<=>S3` is implicitly defined.
Or, `S1+S2<=>S3` and `S1<=>S2`.

Let's use the parameters derived for R_main (kf_M=7.119, kr_M=0.3627). This reaction alone produces the correct initial d(Sum)/dt.
The issue is that this reaction alone does not drive the system to the observed (S1e,S2e,S3e) from (S1_0,S2_0,S3_0) because the total sum of moles is not an independent target.

The fact that the sum of moles converges to ~1.506 from both above and below is the strongest clue.
This implies a regulation of total particle number.
Could it be `X <=> S1+S2+S3` where X is a precursor? But we can't add species.
Or `0 <=> S_eff` where `S_eff` is some combination of S1,S2,S3 that represents total moles, and this reaction has a K_eq that results in `S_eff_eq = 1.506`.
This is like `0 -> S1` (k_prod1), `0 -> S2` (k_prod2), `0 -> S3` (k_prod3)
and `S1 -> 0` (k_deg1*S1), `S2 -> 0` (k_deg2*S2), `S3 -> 0` (k_deg3*S3).
And then interconversions `S1<=>S2`, `S2<=>S3`, etc.

This is a general framework for open systems that reach a homeostatic state.
At equilibrium:
`k_prodi = k_degi * Sie` for species i if it has such source/sink.
And interconversion reactions are also at equilibrium.

Let's try a simpler interpretation of the "mole-neutral" part.
The initial rates for Exp0 were:
S1' = +0.0571 (from R_main) + S1'_other = -0.00135 => S1'_other = -0.058455
S2' = +0.0571 (from R_main) + S2'_other = -0.01506 => S2'_other = -0.072165
S3' = -0.0571 (from R_main) + S3'_other = +0.07350 => S3'_other = +0.130605
Sum of S'_other is ~0.

These S'_other are initial fluxes.
We need reactions that provide these fluxes and also allow the system to reach (0.106, 0.454, 0.945).
The Phoenix-B model (R_main, S1->S3, S2->S3) matched initial rates but failed equilibrium.
If S1->S3 and S2->S3 were reversible:
R_13: `S1 <=> S3` (k13f, k13r). `k13f/k13r = K_eq13 = 8.915`.
  Initial flux `v13_0 = k13f*S1_0 - k13r*S3_0 = k13f*0.2 - k13r*0.55`.
R_23: `S2 <=> S3` (k23f, k23r). `k23f/k23r = K_eq23 = 2.0815`.
  Initial flux `v23_0 = k23f*S2_0 - k23r*S3_0 = k23f*0.1 - k23r*0.55`.

The S'_other contributions are:
S1'_other = -v13_0 = -0.058455 => v13_0 = 0.058455 (net S1->S3)
S2'_other = -v23_0 = -0.072165 => v23_0 = 0.072165 (net S2->S3)
S3'_other = +v13_0 + v23_0 = 0.058455 + 0.072165 = 0.13062. (Matches)

For R_13: `k13f*0.2 - k13r*0.55 = 0.058455`. `k13f = 8.915*k13r`.
  `(8.915*k13r)*0.2 - k13r*0.55 = 0.058455`
  `1.783*k13r - 0.55*k13r = 0.058455`
  `1.233*k13r = 0.058455` => `k13r = 0.0474`. `k13f = 8.915*0.0474 = 0.4225`. (Positive)

For R_23: `k23f*0.1 - k23r*0.55 = 0.072165`. `k23f = 2.0815*k23r`.
  `(2.0815*k23r)*0.1 - k23r*0.55 = 0.072165`
  `0.20815*k23r - 0.55*k23r = 0.072165`
  `-0.34185*k23r = 0.072165` => `k23r = -0.2111`. (Negative k_23r).

This is the same problem as before. The required initial flux for S2->S3 (positive) is opposite to the spontaneous direction for `S2<=>S3` to reach its K_eq23 from initial conditions (S3_0/S2_0 = 5.5, K_eq23 = 2.0815; Q > Keq implies S3->S2).

This means the set of mole-neutral reactions cannot be just `S1<=>S3` and `S2<=>S3`.
What if one of them is `S1 <=> S2`?
S1'_other = -v_S1_S2 - v_S1_S3 = -0.058455
S2'_other = +v_S1_S2 - v_S2_S3 = -0.072165
S3'_other = +v_S1_S3 + v_S2_S3 = +0.130605

Let K_eq12 = S2e/S1e = 4.283.
If we assume v_S2_S3 = 0 (reaction S2<=>S3 is not significant).
  S3'_other = v_S1_S3 = 0.130605 (net S1->S3)
  S1'_other = -v_S1_S2 - v_S1_S3 = -v_S1_S2 - 0.130605 = -0.058455
    `-v_S1_S2 = -0.058455 + 0.130605 = 0.07215` => `v_S1_S2 = -0.07215` (net S2->S1)
  S2'_other = +v_S1_S2 = -0.07215. (Matches S2'_other = -0.072165 closely).

So, mole-neutral part could be:
R_AC: `S1 <=> S3` with initial flux `v_S1_S3 = 0.130605` (S1->S3).
R_AD: `S2 -> S1` (reversed S1->S2) with initial flux `v_S2_S1 = 0.07215` (S2->S1).

For R_AC (`S1<=>S3`): `k_ac_f/k_ac_r = K_eq13 = 8.915`. Flux `k_ac_f*0.2 - k_ac_r*0.55 = 0.130605`.
  `(8.915*k_ac_r)*0.2 - k_ac_r*0.55 = 0.130605`
  `1.783*k_ac_r - 0.55*k_ac_r = 0.130605`
  `1.233*k_ac_r = 0.130605` => `k_ac_r = 0.1059`. `k_ac_f = 8.915*0.1059 = 0.9441`. (Positive)

For R_AD (`S2<=>S1`): `k_ad_f/k_ad_r = K_eq21 = S1e/S2e = 1/4.283 = 0.23348`. Flux `k_ad_f*0.1 - k_ad_r*0.2 = 0.07215` (if S2->S1 is k_ad_f*S2 - k_ad_r*S1).
  Let's use S1<=>S2 (k_S1S2_f, k_S1S2_r) where `k_S1S2_f/k_S1S2_r = K_eq12 = 4.283`.
  Net flux S1->S2 is `v_S1_S2 = -0.07215`.
  `k_S1S2_f*0.2 - k_S1S2_r*0.1 = -0.07215`.
  `(4.283*k_S1S2_r)*0.2 - k_S1S2_r*0.1 = -0.07215`
  `0.8566*k_S1S2_r - 0.1*k_S1S2_r = -0.07215`
  `0.7566*k_S1S2_r = -0.07215` => `k_S1S2_r = -0.09536`. (Negative).

This systematic approach of combining R_main with two reversible mole-neutral reactions keeps hitting negative parameters.
This implies that the assumption that these mole-neutral reactions must also individually conform to the final equilibrium ratios (S1e, S2e, S3e) *and* provide the initial fluxes is too restrictive.
This happens if the initial state is far from equilibrium and requires a strong push in a direction that is "uphill" relative to that reaction's own K_eq.

What if the "other reactions" are not simple `Si <=> Sj` but involve catalysis or are not at equilibrium themselves in the final state (if other things are happening)?
The problem states "discover the biological mechanisms missing".

The initial rates for Exp4 (S2_init=1.0):
S1' (id_j5qx): +0.00242 (S1 increases initially!)
S2' (id_o483): -0.29898 (S2 decreases)
S3' (id_lti5): +0.07129 (S3 increases)

R_main (kf=7.119, kr=0.3627) for Exp4 (S1=0.2, S2=1.0, S3=0.55):
`V_main = 7.119*0.2*1.0 - 0.3627*0.55 = 1.4238 - 0.199485 = +1.224315`.
dS1_main/dt = -V_main = -1.224315
dS2_main/dt = -V_main = -1.224315
dS3_main/dt = +V_main = +1.224315

Now, S'_other for Exp4:
S1'_other = S1_obs' - dS1_main/dt = 0.00242 - (-1.224315) = 1.226735
S2'_other = S2_obs' - dS2_main/dt = -0.29898 - (-1.224315) = 0.925335
S3'_other = S3_obs' - dS3_main/dt = 0.07129 - 1.224315 = -1.153025
Sum check: `1.226735 + 0.925335 - 1.153025 = 2.15207 - 1.153025 = 0.999`. This is NOT zero.

This means the parameters kf_M, kr_M (7.119, 0.3627) are incorrect.
My derivation of these parameters assumed that the "other" reactions were mole-neutral, and used `k = 0.05709` (initial d(Sum)/dt for Exp0) as `abs(V_main_init_Exp0)`.
This `k` was `kr*S3_0 - kf*S1_0*S2_0`.
This is `d(Sum)/dt` for R_main.
If there are other reactions R_other, then `d(Sum)/dt_total = d(Sum)/dt_R_main + d(Sum)/dt_R_other`.
If R_other is mole-neutral, then `d(Sum)/dt_R_other = 0`.
So `d(Sum)/dt_total = d(Sum)/dt_R_main`. This was the core assumption.

Why did S'_other for Exp4 not sum to zero?
It means that with these kf_M, kr_M, the "other" reactions needed to explain Exp4 initial rates are *not* mole-neutral.
This implies the model structure (R_main + mole_neutral_others) is fundamentally flawed, or the kf_M, kr_M are wrong.

The only way kf_M, kr_M can be correct AND other reactions are mole-neutral is if S'_other sums to zero for BOTH experiments using the SAME mole-neutral reactions.
The mole-neutral reactions would have rates like `k_fwd*Conc1 - k_rev*Conc2`. Their contribution to S'_other changes with initial concentrations.

This is a strong indication that the model needs to be rethought.
The fact that S1 increases initially in Exp4 is a major clue.
Exp0: S1 decreases. Exp4: S1 increases.
R_main contribution to S1' for Exp0: +0.0571. For Exp4: -1.2243.
This change of sign for R_main's effect on S1 is good.

Let's assume the "other" reactions are `R_X: S2 <=> S3` (vx) and `R_Y: S3 <=> S1` (vy).
S1'_other = vy
S2'_other = -vx
S3'_other = vx - vy
Sum is `vy - vx + vx - vy = 0`. This structure is mole-neutral.

Exp0:
S1'_other = vy0 = -0.058455 (S3->S1 flux)
S2'_other = -vx0 = -0.072165 => vx0 = 0.072165 (S2->S3 flux)
S3'_other = vx0 - vy0 = 0.072165 - (-0.058455) = 0.13062. (Matches)

Exp4:
S1'_other = vy4 = 1.226735 (S3->S1 flux)
S2'_other = -vx4 = 0.925335 => vx4 = -0.925335 (S3->S2 flux)
S3'_other = vx4 - vy4 = -0.925335 - 1.226735 = -2.152. (This should be -1.153). Mismatch.

The S'_other sum for Exp4 was 0.999, not 0. This means the kf_M, kr_M are likely wrong.
The derivation `kr*0.55 - kf*0.02 = 0.05709` (initial d(Sum)/dt for Exp0) is only for R_main.
If there are other reactions that are *not* mole-neutral, this is wrong.
But if they *are* mole-neutral, then this is correct, and the S'_other for Exp4 should have summed to zero.

The only way out is if the "other" reactions are mole-neutral, but my calculation of their contribution to S'_other for Exp4 was based on kf_M, kr_M that might be slightly off, leading to the non-zero sum.
The sum was 0.999. This is large.

Let's assume the true model has reactions R_main and R_neutral_set.
`d(Species)/dt = f_main(Species) + f_neutral(Species)`
`d(Sum)/dt = Sum(f_main(Species)) + Sum(f_neutral(Species))`
If R_neutral_set is truly mole-neutral, `Sum(f_neutral(Species)) = 0`.
So `d(Sum)/dt = Sum(f_main(Species))`.
This means `kr_M * S3 - kf_M * S1 * S2` must equal the observed `d(Sum)/dt` at T=0 for BOTH experiments.

Exp0: `d(Sum)/dt = 0.05709`. So `kr_M*0.55 - kf_M*0.02 = 0.05709`. (Eq1)
Exp4: `d(Sum)/dt = S1'+S2'+S3' = 0.00242 - 0.29898 + 0.07129 = -0.22527`.
  So `kr_M*0.55 - kf_M*(0.2*1.0) = -0.22527`. (Eq2)
  `kr_M*0.55 - kf_M*0.2 = -0.22527`.

Now we have a system of 2 equations for kf_M, kr_M:
1) `0.55 kr_M - 0.02 kf_M = 0.05709`
2) `0.55 kr_M - 0.20 kf_M = -0.22527`
Subtract (2) from (1):
  `(-0.02 - (-0.20)) kf_M = 0.05709 - (-0.22527)`
  `0.18 kf_M = 0.28236`
  `kf_M = 0.28236 / 0.18 = 1.56866`.
Substitute kf_M into (1):
  `0.55 kr_M - 0.02 * 1.56866 = 0.05709`
  `0.55 kr_M - 0.0313732 = 0.05709`
  `0.55 kr_M = 0.0884632`
  `kr_M = 0.0884632 / 0.55 = 0.160842`.

So, new parameters for R_main: `kf_M = 1.56866`, `kr_M = 0.160842`.
K_eq_M = `1.56866 / 0.160842 = 9.7528`.
This is different from the experimental K_eq of 19.63. This is a problem.

This means the assumption that "other reactions are mole-neutral" is incompatible with "R_main (S1+S2<=>S3) alone governs K_eq for S1,S2,S3".
If other reactions are present, e.g. `S1<=>S3`, then the equilibrium of S1,S2,S3 is governed by all reactions together.

This is a very tangled system. The simplest model that fits K_eq_exp = 19.63 is `S1+S2<=>S3` with `kf/kr=19.63`.
This model failed initial rates for Exp0.
It also failed initial rates for Exp4.
Exp4 initial rates: S1'=+0.00242, S2'=-0.29898, S3'=+0.07129.
Model `S1+S2<=>S3` (kf=7.119, kr=0.3627) for Exp4: S1'=-1.22, S2'=-1.22, S3'=+1.22. All wrong.

The fact that S1 increases in Exp4 is very telling.
R_main (kf=7.119, kr=0.3627) makes S1 decrease (-1.22).
So S1'_other must be `0.00242 - (-1.2243) = +1.2267`. (Strong S1 production from other reactions).

I am going to submit the "Phoenix-B" model. It was built on a more consistent (though ultimately flawed at equilibrium) derivation of R_main parameters and mole-neutral reactions for Exp0. It's unlikely to be correct, but it's a reasoned attempt. The negative parameters encountered when trying to make mole-neutral reactions reversible and fit equilibrium indicate deep issues with that approach.

## Action

### Submit
```python
import libsbml

# Model "Phoenix-B":
# 1. R_main: S1 + S2 <=> S3 (kf1=7.119, kr1=0.3627)
# 2. R_13: S1 -> S3 (k_13 = 0.292275 * S1)
# 3. R_23: S2 -> S3 (k_23 = 0.72165 * S2)
# This model was designed to match initial rates of Exp0, assuming R_main parameters
# derived from d(Sum)/dt_Exp0 and K_eq_exp.
# The irreversible R_13 and R_23 will lead to incorrect long-term equilibrium (S1e=0, S2e=0).

sbml_doc_final = libsbml.readSBMLFromString(input_sbml_string)
model_final = sbml_doc_final.getModel()

# Clear any existing reactions from input_sbml_string, just in case
if model_final.getNumReactions() > 0:
    for i in range(model_final.getNumReactions() -1, -1, -1):
        model_final.removeReaction(model_final.getReaction(i).getId())

# R_main: id_j5qx + id_o483 <=> id_lti5
reaction_M = model_final.createReaction()
reaction_M.setId("R_main")
reaction_M.setReversible(True)
rM_r1 = reaction_M.createReactant(); rM_r1.setSpecies("id_j5qx"); rM_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
rM_r2 = reaction_M.createReactant(); rM_r2.setSpecies("id_o483"); rM_r2.setStoichiometry(1.0)
rM_p1 = reaction_M.createProduct();  rM_p1.setSpecies("id_lti5"); rM_p1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
kl_M = reaction_M.createKineticLaw()
kf_M_param = kl_M.createParameter(); kf_M_param.setId("kf_M"); kf_M_param.setValue(7.119)
kr_M_param = kl_M.createParameter(); kr_M_param.setId("kr_M"); kr_M_param.setValue(0.3627)
kl_M.setFormula("kf_M * id_j5qx * id_o483 - kr_M * id_lti5")

# R_13: id_j5qx -> id_lti5
reaction_13 = model_final.createReaction()
reaction_13.setId("R_S1_to_S3")
reaction_13.setReversible(False)
r13_r1 = reaction_13.createReactant(); r13_r1.setSpecies("id_j5qx"); r13_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
r13_p1 = reaction_13.createProduct();  r13_p1.setSpecies("id_lti5"); r13_p1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
kl_13 = reaction_13.createKineticLaw()
k_13_param = kl_13.createParameter(); k_13_param.setId("k_13"); k_13_param.setValue(0.292275)
kl_13.setFormula("k_13 * id_j5qx")

# R_23: id_o483 -> id_lti5
reaction_23 = model_final.createReaction()
reaction_23.setId("R_S2_to_S3")
reaction_23.setReversible(False)
r23_r1 = reaction_23.createReactant(); r23_r1.setSpecies("id_o483"); r23_r1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
r23_p1 = reaction_23.createProduct();  r23_p1.setSpecies("id_lti5"); r23_p1.setStoichiometry(1.0)
kl_23 = reaction_23.createKineticLaw()
k_23_param = kl_23.createParameter(); k_23_param.setId("k_23"); k_23_param.setValue(0.72165)
kl_23.setFormula("k_23 * id_o483")

final_sbml = libsbml.writeSBMLToString(sbml_doc_final)
print("Final SBML model (Phoenix-B) prepared for submission.")
# print(final_sbml) # Optional: print the SBML string
```
