 So, thank you for setting it up so perfectly. So I think this is essentially a summary sort of discussion, and we have gone through many of these points before. But I think thinking in terms of what are our goals at the end of the 10-year cycle is that, and I think it's important for us to think about those, because that guides us of what kind of data we are generating. So just some ideas to throw out there. I think our goal is obviously the most important goal is enhanced clinical and research knowledge. And maybe those sub-goals in that category could be better phenotypering, taking a more comprehensive approach as we are already doing, gene-to-function studies, and obviously establishing a biorepository that can be then used by other investigators, other centers. Centered goals like models for improved patient engagement, measurement or measuring the cost of a comprehensive UDN evaluation versus typical. I think this has been John Mulvihill's baby for a long time. But I think that's a very important point. I mean, in 10 years, can we talk to our funders and insurance providers and tell them to listen to UDN-based comprehensive evaluations, in fact, cheaper? That would be, if it was cheaper, then it would be an easy sell. Be able to identify barriers to diagnosis. I think at the end of 10 years to know whether, you know, what worked and what didn't work. How are some people diagnosed? In other words, maybe it's all related to somebody having a rare molecular mechanism or maybe it was a straightforward access to care. I think it allows us to test the model for sharing unpublished data because, you know, our goal is to have this data available very quickly, which actually many times, if you're a research scientist, there are many times lots to do. The data is raw and they don't want to publish that. So this is the UDN program forces people to do that. And I think that will be interesting to see whether there is any benefit of that downstream. Okay, so this, again, the first point we've already talked about, I think, having a metric, how we share data. I think Wendy Chung alluded to that early on with, for example, mental project. But there are several other common front projects. Maybe a best way to do that sort of integration is to entice bio-traumatic scientists by having a funding mechanism so they can go out and actually design such a thing. I think enhanced core support, and this is a short-term thing for the next six years, is going to be critical. Do we really want to limit each site to testing of two or one or less than one variant per model organism? I think if the goal is to actually look at mechanistic or devise mechanistic pathways for these diseases, it is, I think, very important that our model organism cores be better funded than they probably are right now. So we are able to test more variants. Private partnerships. So maybe having a way that maybe private industry is interested in a particular pathway, a particular gene. I know there are a couple of companies. Literally, Generalon is one who has kind of reached out to some of the sites in UDN. So I think that could be very important. Patient engagement we talked about. And an important part is what happens to these patients after they're diagnosed. And I'm not going to talk about this because we've already discussed that. And so I think one of the important things that occurred to me is that, so we will probably be working at our best maybe another two or three years when all of the sites have really seen a number of patients. They know what works and what doesn't work. And then three years later, we're going to say, OK, we are now ready to dismantle the program because time has run out. And I think so, I think just like the previous speaker just mentioned, the time is now for us to think about not the next five years, but what happens eight years down the road. And I think we have to come up with a strategy that this program, which I think is very key and all of the people alluded to it just right now, how important it is for training next generation physicians, how important it is to train other subspecialists, how they can integrate all this data to maybe think about a different another model. And you know, the thought that occurred to me and I don't know the politics of it, but maybe a sort of idea like the National Comprehensive Cancer Center. I know that program took decades to establish, but the idea here would be that you could potentially have the undiagnosed disease centers of excellence, if you want to call it, where this work will continue. And then, of course, the million dollar question there would be how are they funded. So, our billion dollars, as John says. But you know, the interesting thing to remember here is that, you know, with the current NIH focus on translational medicine and personalized medicine, I mean, this is what UDN is. It is translational at one level and it is personalized to large degree. So I think I'll stop here and kind of leave these two things that I stole from the NCI website. And I was reading them these statements and I thought, you know, we could substitute UDN there and it'll be exactly what we are trying to do. Thanks.