I'm glad you understand the question now.
In your previous testimony, I asked you if you were informed of the September 4 decision by the director of public prosecutions. You said no, and then by midway of your testimony you indicated, “I think she advised the Prime Minister of her view that a deferred prosecution agreement was not a good course and she had no intention of intervening. And indeed, she has never intervened.”
As I said before, we're on safe ground to say that you and the Prime Minister both knew on September 17 that she had made her final decision and had no intention of intervening.