What we're saying is that in most commercial dispute settlement processes, two things happen. The first thing that happens is to determine whether or not there's a legitimate basis for recourse or for restitution. In other words, did we break the rules? Did we do something we shouldn't have done? That's step one.
Step two is, okay, you broke the rules, what's the recourse, what's the restitution? In most circumstances, if that's happening in the commercial world, you go and look at the dollars and cents and what damages were created and you make a determination on that basis. And that's basically all we're saying.
If you're suggesting that somehow or other that will happen anyway under this process, you're probably right. But we don't understand why you would withdraw that second normal commercial test. We simply don't understand the logic of not doing that.