I thought I'd answered that question.
Really, all I can say is that what became apparent through this process, as the superintendent explained, is that just because a bank had only committed to general disruption liquidity lines and the conduits are legally separate entities, in the event, they decided—I assume, for largely reputational reasons and to the benefit of investors—they would back them.
This hadn't happened before. When it did happen, what it illustrated to the superintendent is that even though legally they were under no obligation to do so, they chose to do so, which suggests that in the future they would probably choose to do so again, and therefore the distinction between these two in terms of capital charges needed to be changed.