Respectfully, you are, actually. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to revisit this because I did not complete my explanation with Ms. Kusie earlier.
What is raised in that concern paper was a question to help us understand the methodology whereby Boeing has demonstrated compliance to a particular requirement. That concern paper does not in itself reveal or demonstrate a discovery of a problem with the aircraft. The outcome of that inquiry would indicate to us whether the systems implicated represent a stall protection system or a stall identification system. That was the gist of the question. If you read to the end of the document, you'll see we did get the response, which satisfied us that the system is indeed only a stall identification system.
Had it been a stall protection system, the design integrity for the relevant systems would have been held to a much higher level. We were satisfied with the response. At that point, we were fully in the know as to how the testing had been done. That concern paper does not in itself in any way represent a problem. Because the nature of the question was trying to understand the method by which that system was certified, that in itself did not reveal any concerns. I look back on that issue paper and I have no regrets. We asked the question. We did indeed defer the answer to a later time.
In the end, the answer came back and it confirmed what we had wanted to hear, but it does not relate directly to the problems that caused the accidents.