I directed you to a paper arguing for a strike-slip subduction transition, you must provide me a paper arguing for a subduction reversal at the Puysegur trench. That's how science works. Oh yes you do. You make the vague claim that the rotations around Euler poles for the Pacific plate and the Australian-Indian plate explain the variability of the tectonic boundary across New-Zealand (eastward subduction, strike-slip, westward subduction), you support your claim with data or papers. The rest is blah-blah. Buoyancy. This comment is irrelevant to my statement. I was referring to the orthodox view of plate tectonics: knowing that the density of the oceanic crust is dependent on its age, then it was thought that the dip of a slab would be related to its age, the oldest, the densest, the steepest. This is not the case as shown by Serge Lallemand. The dip is more dependent on other parameters, especially the global subsurface mantle flow (See Carlo Doglioni). Indeed, you're nowhere to be found in the scientific bibliography databases. You have a master degree but what makes you believe that you have more credentials than professional researchers?