The purpose of this cut is unclear due to degradation and the state of preservation of surrounding SUs. The cut is clear in the northern area of the SU, but unclear in the southern area due to mortar socle 8388. It is unclear whether motar socle 8388 is covering the full extent of the cut in the southern section, or if some of the more degraded areas of mortar from socle 8388 have fallen in a later time. At this time, we are unable to see a direct relationship between the cut and the mosaic floor 8380 because the mosaic is not preserved along any point of the cut. There are disturbed mosaic tesserae only at the very southern end of wall 8199, where neither the cut nor the socle 8388 are visible. There are currently three hypothesis concerning this cut. The first is that it is a foundation cut for wall 8199, suggesting that the wall is a later addition. However, there is no further evidence to support this theory since the eastern side of wall 8199 in room I-10 is obscured by the opus signinum 8256, and where it is missing, it is possible to see that the mosaic 8380 abuts wall 8199 on the eastern side. Moreover, the two distinct patterns of mosaic 8380 in rooms I-10 and I-18 suggest the rooms already contained separating wall 8199 when the mosaic 8380 was laid. The second theory is that this SU is a cut for the laying of the socle 8388. However, in the center area of the cut, the marble revetment pieces and mortar of socle 8388 are flush and have a finished look, yet there is still a lot of gap space left in the cut between what appears to be the "face" of the decorative socle 8388 and floor prep 8381. The theory that this is a foundation cut for the socle does not explain the significant extra space left in areas of the cut in front of what appears to be a flat face of the socle 8388. A third theory is that there was an additional, full marble revetment or socle laid in front of socle 8388, effectively covering it, and that this revetment, now robbed out, was put into place before the cement floor prep layer 8381 was laid down, explaining why the cut in the northern area of this SU is so nicely defined. However, this theory does not explain why marble pieces would have been placed into the decorative socle 8388 if it were covered by a nicer, full marble revetment, which in this hypothesis has now been robbed out. We did not find similar cuts along any of the other walls in room I-18 this season.