One of the reasons why the growth in output precedes the growth in employment is that in our model, there is a time lag between the two. The impact of the 0.6 % increase is seen anywhere from four to six quarters after the increase in output. This is an additional element of caution that we added to the model. We rejected the hypothesis that employment increases just as quickly as output.
The increase in production or output must be sustained in order for employment to increase. There is therefore a certain time lag. If we do the calculations, we see that if the funds are fully committed, the overall impact on output would be noticeable, but not the impact on employment. That would be discernible later. If I understand your question correctly, this time lag could explain the difference to which you alluded.