FIG. 2: The observable ratio R (71), shown as a function of Q 2 for fixed W = 82 GeV. This Figure is taken from [41]. (67), (68) of the input parton distributions. The result for the corresponding skewness ratio presented e.g. in [14] reads: Comparing this to (75) and (76) we conclude that both in the quark and gluon cases RDDA with b = α q,g results in the very same skewness effect for small ξ as the minimalist dual model with the same input. Thus, in the quark sector the minimalist dual model produces the non zero skewness effect for small ξ . It makes this model unpractical for the description of DVCS at small x$_{Bj}$ due to systematical ∼ 50% overshooting of the available H1 cross section data. At this point the minimalist dual model has no advantage comparing to the common version of RDDA plagued by the same problem (see [42] and the discussion in [13, 14]) At the same time, in the gluon sector the skewness effect in the minimalist dual model turns to be very small. It is worth to mention is the growing confidence that the gluon skewness ratio is also not given by the conformal ratio (76) (see discussion in [14]). The pure LO analysis of hard exclusive ρ 0 electroproduction rather hints that r g < 1. In fact one may recognize in (76) the well known result obtained in [38] using the Shuvaev integral transform approach [29]. In [14] it was suggested to call it as the conformal ratio 23 r q RDDA ≡ H q $_{DD}$( ξ, ξ ) H q $_{DD}$( ξ, 0) ≃ 2 2 b − α $^{q}$Γ( b + 3 $_{2}$)Γ(1 + b − α $^{q}$) Γ( 3 $_{2}$)Γ(2 + 2 b − α $^{q}$) ; r g RDDA ≡ H g $_{DD}$( ξ, ξ ) H g $_{DD}$( ξ, 0) ≃ 2 2 b +1 − α $^{g}$Γ( b + 3 $_{2}$)Γ(2 + b − α $^{g}$) Γ( 3 $_{2}$)Γ(3 + 2 b − α $^{g}$) . (77)