I believe the question is actually kind of fundamental. As Mr. Anderson alluded to, the onus of proof with the word “shall” means essentially that people are paid, and then it's up to, essentially, the government to confirm what the degree of loss was, as opposed to the normal situation of onus of proof, which would show that not only do you have to determine if there was a compensable loss, but the degree of the damage as well. Would you say that first?
The word “shall” confirms that there's going to be, one would say, an automatic payout, as opposed to determining the onus of proof that there was a compensable loss.