That was the nature of our discussions with the department. We certainly believe the version depicted in the report is accurate. Any assumptions made were only based on the facts that were provided. If there was a fact provided and no fact provided on the other side, I think we were safe to make the assumptions we did.
There were a number of instances where we had discussions with the department to understand its perspective because, at the end of the day, what we're trying to achieve here is factual accuracy. That is why we engage with the department. First of all, it's required by way of the regulation. Second of all, we want to make sure the report accurately reflects the facts. If there are facts that are wrong, we want those to be corrected before we finalize the report.
I think the issue the department was having was regarding any inferences made as a result—a conclusion based on what it saw as unrelated facts that we saw as related.