 We're pretty much back on schedule, and I think almost everything in these slides maybe has been addressed, so I'll just highlight a few things. So these were the questions, which are what methods can we adopt or develop to most effectively generate the evidence, how can we leverage ongoing work from other groups, and what's the evidence that these will scale. And so just a few things from my reading and the discussions beforehand, not necessarily obviously during this discussion, I think that it is important, and this was raised again I think by Gail, the steps that the early phases of emerge use SNPs that are much more common and therefore you could get more power. Emerge 3 has done this, sequencing of consensus lists within emphasis on the ACMG 56, and now they're, as Richard pointed out, there's a lot of work to semi-automate the reporting. But it is important to remember just the point that Gail made that some of the critical SNPs have been brought through, and so those studies can continue. But just by switching to Mendelian disorders, I'm not sure it's been highlighted enough, it was mentioned, I forgot, by which of the panelists that you are, I think, Mark, you are switching now to a very small proportion of individuals, and we saw that in Gail slide with positive findings. And so if we're talking about cost-effectiveness or intermediate biomarkers, are you actually going to have enough people to do that? And then I was struck that although the sequencing is harmonized, the re-phenotyping, the return to results is not, and obviously you're going to learn from the different approaches, but perhaps in future consortia one has to kind of decide, does that continue to be a good thing, or is it better to have more harmonization at the beginning? I just wanted to, I stole Eric's slide and then just added in more of the different programs that Terry reviewed, and then I put all of us here on the right with a big logo, because it's a big study. And I just think that this is really going to be critical, and I think I've made many comments about that along the morning, that we really harmonize much better. Things that have been built in one consortium, we really need almost like a boot camp. So the PIs of the new consortia or even the renewing, whatever, really say, okay, what's been built over there that we can use? I think we need some more effective way of doing that, harmonizing across, and of course all of us has spent a lot of time recently building their tools, and their tools are much more based on smartphones and things like that than some of the other consortia. But these are all different consortia that are trying to address this issue and figuring out the most effective way for us to work together. I think will be critical as we look to future studies and trying to generate, I mean the group in the back has particularly pushed us on how much data are you going to get, how much evidence are you going to be able to generate, and the more we are using similar measures or harmonizing measures, the better off we'll be. And then this slide basically just says what I just said. So in ClinGen in particular isn't doing any trials, but we're also generating standards, and it would be great if those standards are also in addition to the measures that the other consortia are developing, or one more thing that could potentially be harmonized, the actionability or clinical validity that we're talked about, but we really need to standardize measures for genomic medicine of clinical utility and cost-effectiveness and actionability. And one of the things I've learned from this morning and from my own work is genomic medicine is in kind of its own weird space. And certainly the people in CSER that have tried to look at cost-effectiveness, can't just translate existing tools into genomic studies very easily. So I think that's a challenge for future consortia as well, and we had a lot of discussion about that just in the last hour. And then finally scaling. One thing that hasn't been talked about is what's going on out in the rest of the world. As many of you know, colors just announced are 99 for the October breast cancer awareness month. The BRCA one and two is $99. Many of the companies are coming out with very cheap panel tests. I've been struck by how large scale the testing going on in the community is. And all of us, of course, is another example of really increasing scale of research protocols that will include return of results. ClinGen is looking at crowdsourcing. So certainly planning for the next phase of a merge, we really have to have a very thoughtful approach and I'm sure it will get talked about more this afternoon with disruptive technologies on how do we actually scale our efforts so that it may need to be considerably larger than the current size. And I think that's it. So we are on schedule. I believe there's a plan for picture. I assume the picture is before lunch. Yes? I just make two announcements. One is the group photo upstairs, outside of first floor. Outside is cold. But it's better than last time we had a slow store. So get out as quick as possible and get it in. And the lunch, if you already had your lunch reserved, the lunch will be provided outside the table. If not, we have a very nice cafeteria on first floor. You can buy lunch from there.