I would think that's a good thing. It doesn't bind the minister to the outcome that they, as a minister, want to have and to recommend going forward, but it does ensure that the minister has a deeper level of information than the first level of review would probably give them. It may or may not, I guess. It will all depend on the situation. It may confirm that it's not an issue, for example. You might have been able to get that from the first level, or you might not. It may provide a more robust amount of information, so it guarantees that there's a little deeper dive on the information that goes in. It may result in the same information going back, but we don't know if it would result in more, unless the process makes the minister go to that level.
Is that correct, if you can follow? I don't know if people are following; it may sound a little circular.