I would say that's what they expected in this study. I haven't seen the draft yet. It will be more on the science side, but even on the social side you need some science facts. You can go with anecdotes and you can go with somebody's impression, but you need the facts to be able to translate this into real numbers you can rely on.
Even if it is not focused on that last type of translation between the results we have—for example, if there's work on water, and the work is saying the inflow, outflow, etc., with numbers and how much was spent on monitoring water—it has a social impact. The social impact might be implied. As I said, I can't say for sure but I'll find out in June. It may just be implied. We may have to force it a little bit to make sure there is an element there.
We may have to extend the study a little bit to get more numbers, but the facts are very important. A lot of information is going around. How much of it is fact, based on getting the right numbers, is your guess and my guess.