be used. In this case, when both symmetries (axial and mass symmetry) are broken simultaneously, the nuclear shapes are defined by the following equation of the nuclear surface: $$\begin{aligned}
 R(\vartheta ,\varphi)= R_0 c(\{\beta\})\left\{ 1 \right.&+&  \beta_{20}
 {\rm Y}_{20}+\frac{\beta_{22}}{\sqrt{2}} \left[{{\rm Y}_{22} + {\rm Y}_{2 - 2}}\right]  \nonumber\\
 &+& \beta_{30}  {\rm Y}_{30} + \beta_{40}  {\rm Y}_{40} + \beta_{50}  {\rm Y}_{50}  \nonumber\\
 &+& \beta_{60} {\rm Y}_{60} +  \beta_{70}  {\rm Y}_{70} + \beta_{80} {\rm Y}_{80}  \}.\end{aligned}$$

It turned out that this minimization lowers energy of only those saddles in which: i) there is no triaxiality, ii) deformation $\beta_{20}\approx 0.3$. This supports an often expressed conventional “wisdom”, that the mass-asymmetry and triaxiality effects on fission saddle are decoupled. This is why, at the second step of the procedure, we could carry out a full IWF analysis on a grid including only axially-symmetric deformations: $\beta_{20},\beta_{30},\beta_{40},\beta_{50},\beta_{60},\beta_{70},\beta_{80}$, with $\beta_{20}$ restricted to a quite short interval $0.25 - 0.40$:

$$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{20} & = &  \ \   0.25 \ (0.05) \ 0.40    \nonumber \\
\beta_{30} & = &  \ \   0.00 \ (0.05) \ 0.25    \nonumber \\
\beta_{40} & = &  \ \  -0.15 \ (0.05) \ 0.20    \nonumber \\
\beta_{50} & = &  \ \   0.00 \ (0.05) \ 