Evolution is probably the right way to put it. As I and others have mentioned, there are a lot of things that the IPS, as it is, does right.
I'll amplify the comment made by Professor Caouette. This is also about evolution in a way that allows for more flexibility to adjust to changing conditions and a complex reality, instead of being so focused on the short term.
A way to also approach the evolution of the strategy to reconcile inconsistencies within the strategy is to have a better grasp at how the various sub-regions and various parts of the strategy are interconnected. One initiative that might go very well in one particular sub-region or that might be very well received in one particular country or by one particular group of stakeholders might not have the same effects elsewhere and with another group of stakeholders.
This is where weaning ourselves off the kind of blanket characterizations of certain countries might actually be somewhere where we can adjust. The kind of signalling this sends is something that is not needed for the Indo-Pacific strategy in Canada to define the facts around a particular relationship but without creating unnecessary burden that needs to be backpedalled after the fact.