First of all, the idea of having a three-year plan is to give advance notice to institutions of what we are going to look at. I actually want people to comply with the legislation even before we do an investigation. Just signalling to someone that you're going to look into their performance usually has a positive effect. That's the first idea.
This year we were focusing on timeliness in the three-year plan, but as part of timeliness there is a component that deals with the approval processes within an institution and we were going to look at that already. When there were allegations of political interference, I decided to add a component to that investigation, because I'm going to be looking at the same documents as part of this investigation and I can only have one systemic investigation of that scope per year, given the resources I have. It made the most sense to add that component, because I'm going to use the efficiency of looking at the same documents as part of this investigation.
I may then decide to close one part earlier than another. Depending upon how it unfolds, I can still do that, but essentially use the same team and look at the same information.