It may seem picky, but that includes having the number of the recommendation beside the recommendation. Also, there's a final column that is the indicator, for the committee's use, of whether it has been achieved or not. There's a reason for that standard format. We look at a lot of action plans and need to be able to identify quickly where we are. I had the opportunity this morning, because I had five action plans in front of me, to see how people were completing them.
Just one other little thing—because, yes, I am being picky—is this. In recommendation 1.39, the auditor's recommendation is to identify “operational areas”, not “occupational areas”. This is something that happens with our computers' fast programs today, which populate our spelling and so on: sometimes words inadvertently are interchanged. It may seem like a small thing, but it could be a big thing. An expression that I developed when I worked with students is that in university “spellcheck is not brain check”. It's always good to have somebody relooking at something; fresh eyes make a big difference.
Moving on from there, I made an ad hoc table. I took three of the recommendations and each of your organizations, and I looked at the deadlines and at whether you had completed them or not. I'm sure the analyst is going to do a much better job than I have of doing the final table.
What I was looking at was these three recommendations: recommendation 1.54, which is about self-declared conflict of interest; recommendation 1.55, which is the identification of conflict of interest in operational areas of risk; then the data analytics, recommendation 1.71.
What I want to bring attention to is that everybody has a different timeline, and that's entirely appropriate, because while we're looking at the same type of risk, everybody has different challenges in addressing it.
May I ask, Mr. Glover, how things are going with recommendation 1.54? Have you completed it or not? It was listed for April 30, 2017.