I wouldn't, but I'm not an accountant. Okay, thank you.
I want to move to the broader picture here. We still seem to be at the point where the ministry is arguing not so much that there weren't things that happened that were big, but more that those things were inconsequential to the final outcome; this is basically what I'm hearing. I don't pretend to understand the formula, but what you're saying is that even if you had applied the worst-case scenario, it wouldn't have changed the outcome, and therefore your position that it was a fair and equitable contract stands--the process.