I appreciate the question. There are two elements to the answer.
Number one is with regard to the statutory standing of the OAG in its own act.
Number two is the parameters under which they're provided. It's under an NDA, which the committee, in the second session, will not be under. In the context of our obligation vis-à-vis the proponents, our requirement is that we consult with them and seek their permission. That's what we did.
With regard to the nature of it, 300 pages may seem a lot, but these are 300 in the context of multiple thousands of pages. The type of information is almost identical across the sections that have been redacted, and they're primarily around the statements of work.