That's a great question. The reason is that it's directly about the consequences of the change.
If you look at the report, you see it has essentially two effects. The first is through the first three LOEs, where we have a universe where bait and switch is in fact possible. Then you have the policy change that occurred as a result of a decision taken by the department. That scope period post change is quite short, but as we were writing the report we were also hearing from procurement stakeholders who were being impacted by that change. We didn't think it would be appropriate to not mention those potential consequences and also add accountability to the department and include transparency associated with what we were hearing about that change in the report, because we saw it as directly relevant.