Thank you for the opportunity to clarify, because it's a very important question.
I responded to the question in terms of normally--let me be as clear as I can--why you would go to a 75-25 technical to price. I tried to outline some of the factors that would contribute to that. The Auditor General did note, appropriately so, that the reasons for going to 75-25 were not on the file. And I don't mean, by any stretch, to say that documentation exists and was not forthcoming to the Auditor General. I took the question at a different level--in terms of why you would put the weighting at 75-25, and not whether you documented this on the file.
I hope that clarifies.