Central black hole mass M_BH as a function of host galaxy stellar mass M_star (left) and host galaxy dynamical mass M_dyn (right) for GS_3073 (blue filled star) and literature compilations. Left panel: Comparison of our galaxy to local AGN by Reines & Volonteri (2015). In this case, the black hole mass was determined from a BLR or from reverberation mapping (red circles, with representative error bar in grey). The black line with a shaded region shows the best fit with uncertainties to this data by Reines & Volonteri (2015), and the dashed lines indicate the intrinsic scatter plus measurement uncertainties. As teal diamonds, we show data by Kocevski et al. (2023) for which we calculated the black hole mass based on Eq. (1) for consistency with our measurement and the z = 0 data. Right panel: Comparison of our galaxy to z ≥ 6 QSOs by Izumi et al. (2021, green diamonds). For our dynamical mass estimate, we adopted a Sérsic index of n_S = 4 and an effective radius of R_e = 0.18 kpc. We indicated uncertainties by varying R_e between 0.11 and 0.9 kpc. The black line shows the local M_BH − M_bulge relation with uncertainties and intrinsic scatter by Kormendy & Ho (2013). The black hole of GS_3073 is at the lower end of the M_BH − M_dyn distribution when compared to the measurements by Izumi et al. (2021), but it still appears overly massive for its host galaxy’s dynamical mass when compared to the local relation by Kormendy & Ho (2013). Considering the M_BH − M_star relation, the black hole of GS_3073 is much more massive in comparison to local broad line AGN with a similar host galaxy stellar mass.