Thank you.
We've been discussing timelines a little bit, and that's come up from a number of our colleagues here. I think hydro was mentioned as your third bullet, and improving timeliness. That just came up in the previous discussion here.
Dr. Usher, I appreciate your thoughtful approach. You've been at this a long time, as have other people at the table. I notice you started your remarks with your primary concern, products and outcomes, rather than with process. I appreciate that you said somewhere in your remarks that you like to ask what the question is that you're trying to address in a review process.
You made some comments about mandatory time limits, on which there seemed to have been some discussion here. But I thought you did make some good points in your presentation about room for improvement. There are things that can and should be done with respect to the timely and effective provision of technical support to panels. You mentioned timely and fulsome provision of information to panels by all participants and—a third bullet—panel guidance and training with respect to procedures and conduct.
Those are things that perhaps can be tweaked. You've obviously put some thought into this. I'm wondering if you have any recommendations specifically about how to achieve those objectives.