flavored arguments and results in the literature.\
Coming back to the configuration spaces of graphs, it can be seen that their cohomologies cannot possibly be representation stable. As before, this issue seems to stem from the fact that it is much harder for points on a graph to move past one another. In one extreme case, for example, the $n$-strand configuration space of a line segment is homotopy equivalent to $n!$ disjoint points. For more complicated graphs, their configuration spaces are connected, but this doesn’t prevent $n!$ type growth from appearing in the higher homology groups (see [@G Proposition 4.1], for example). Despite this fact, recent work of Lütgehetmann [@L1][@L2], as well as the author [@R1], have made progress in treating the configuration spaces of graphs from a more asymptotic viewpoint. While it is not the case that the homology of sink configuration spaces of graphs are representation stable in the sense of Church and Farb, one of the main results of this paper is that they do exhibit generalized representation stability in the sense of [@R2].\
While we save the technical aspects of what this means for the body of the paper (see Section \[fiddef\]), we can at least 