 My name is Don Cripal. I'm currently Director of Eye Detect Services with the Capital Center for Credibility Assessment, C3A, also a member of the Converis Technical Advisory Board for Eye Detect. I have three years of federal service, all of it in the Credibility Assessment Arena, primarily in the area of polygraph but more recently in other technologies as well. Both polygraph and the Eye Detect systems have advantages. For example, with the Eye Detect station, the tests are very, very quick. They are automated. They're fair. The decision algorithm is based on actuarial data, so it's completely valid. We understand what the error rates can be. The advantage of polygraph is it's also very thorough. That is, an examiner can make certain statements and the test questions are adjusted to accommodate those statements. Polygraph examiners also elicit information after the examination of a failed test. And that's one of the advantages of having polygraph examiners conducting the testing is that dual skill set. The question in my mind is one better than the other. The actual answer to that is both of them used in tandem afford advantages that neither technology can offer alone. For example, pre-screening with the Eye Detect system can tell you which individuals are more likely to be successful in the polygraph examination. And those individuals should be given priority if you're trying to test an applicant. They should be given priority for the polygraph examinations because more individuals will pass the polygraph examination and move on for hiring. In the case of government employees where you're looking for the insider threat, poor performance on Eye Detect would mean that those individuals are tested sooner. And therefore you can intercede sooner as a manager if it requires that the employee receive remedial training and handling of classified information or more security. A lot of security troublesome cases where law enforcement investigators can come in and try to determine whether it was a serious breach of national security. Another advantage of using the technologies together is that they are independent tests. So, though both of the technologies are imperfect, both of them have less than 100% accuracy because they're independent tests, they'll make errors typically on different cases. And what you will find is that if they agree on the outcome, your accuracy will be much higher than the accuracy with each technology alone. For example, let's suppose that each one of them has an error rate of about 15%. If an individual took both Eye Detect and polygraph and was called deceptive on both tests, each of them having an error rate of 15%. The likelihood of that person really being truthful is 15% of 15%, which is roughly 3%.