 I guess I'm a bit unsure about how you use the term trade-off rather than costs and benefits for a decision or the... Do you mind if I can try it? Can we be a customer for the decision of a project or organization to conduct a certain or it could be in terms of actual physical landscape itself. So for us to be able to try it. How do you find the trade-off in this? We have purposely left it open and the reason is, I mean, you know, one of the things that we realized early on in this process, and again, this is, you know, I don't want to, like, air dirty laundry and too much, but, you know, part of the dysfunctionality of all of it, one of the things we realized is that different perspectives not only see the case study from their perspective, but they also see the other perspectives from their perspective. Do you know what I'm saying? So we have, for instance, at our Tanzania workshop, there was a guy there and he said, oh, you just talked about opportunity costs. Here, in the conversation, he said, no. Different, you know, someone who works in, you know, sort of a more process mode, whatever their discipline or field of practice wouldn't necessarily think in terms of costs and benefits and would think in terms of fairness and equity. That's a very different way of thinking about a trade-off than thinking about, you know, who wins, who loses, and so forth. Likewise, you know, someone who sort of views things from a power perspective would say, you know, the trade-offs are being made, I don't know, trade-offs are being made through the kind of insidious process of redefining the forests. So the thing is, and this was really my initial, as I mentioned, my initial resistance to the idea of trade-offs because it does, it can be read from a somewhat narrow perspective. But what you have to realize is that lots of different fields use the idea of trade-offs and they use it in very sometimes explicit ways or very sort of formal methods attached to it but also in very informal ways or very implicit ways or through various benefits. Like whenever you talk about choice or decision, you really, in many contexts, talking about a trade-off and that may not be captured by an analysis that tells you to think about the cost and just the cost of that kind of challenge. Just a small addition on that, back to your language, where we've had many discussions on what is the appropriate Basin-Initia term for trade-off. I think the term we came up with is actually interesting, not in your valuation box, but it is in the process and the power and reverse to verbs. One is static, which is pudding, and one is tawar, which means negotiate. Tawar is, if you can say it back to English, becomes tug-of-war. But I think that's also back in translation. That's an easy term for a trade-off is actually translated back to an easy tug-of-war. Different things, negotiating and pudding. Yeah, that's great. If you've discussed all the analysis of the valuation process and power in terms of the gas that might appear, then what do you do with that information? That's why I was being very forthright in saying so-then-what. And we really are in the process of the so-then-what. So we want to be able to say something more than, well, this identifies these research gaps. I mean, that's an important thing to be able to say as a result of an analysis like this. But I also think one of the things that we've become very aware of, and perhaps we've developed this in kind of a testing into these workshops, is that there are particular, you know, every country has a different political culture, different institutional framework for doing things, different ideas about centralization, which is rights or various kinds of things. And, you know, again, in a sort of pluralism, one size doesn't fit all. And I think we've particularly become aware of this in Vietnam where there is a process that could occur in Vietnam involving this kind of analysis that would lead in a very different direction than if you were to do a political test in Indonesia or whatever. And so that's something that we're, I think, we're not struggling with yet, but we identify it as something that we need to address. You had a question? Can we see the former slide in terms of answering the first question? I just wanted to see, and it looked like, through plans, that it was the good players. And I would imagine that during your case, that you're likely to consult with some of the international level buyers, and maybe it's the social... I'm just wondering if that's really consultation. Yes. This, what I'm trying to do with this external consultation, I mean, I'm sort of approaching this in two sort of... And this is really about CICI, not ACS, right? This is... I'm coming at this as an anthropologist who's acutely aware of the deep distrust of anthropologists and academics in general by conservation practitioners. And I'm also coming at this from the perspective that in my field, we've talked about collaboration a lot, okay? But we've all, and I think we've covered a great, you know, we've covered a lot of distance, but it's always in the context of how do we collaborate with those local communities where we work. What we have in address is what does collaboration mean when you're working with, you know, CICI and TSE and WWF and so forth, where you come up against issues of complicity, academic integrity and so forth. It can be a very difficult thing. And that's what I'm trying to do is envision a process where we can do research in conjunction with these organizations, build partnerships in a way that's truly plywood, but that also addresses those academic concerns because we can't decide whether we're going to evolve, and so forth. The other side of it is that process. And this is one of the things that I've been doing here. If we were to, let's say, undertake something related to part of Borneo or Crow Triangle, you know, I wouldn't just be visiting TNCCI and WWF. But obviously, you know, scoping out who all the local NGOs are, who speaks for local communities and all of that. But this is really for the process of, this is for the process of CICR strategic planning. And for instance, what I present to Central Funders, to my university, to the Vice President for Research and all of that. But the other part is really cute. You haven't listed donors on that. You mentioned donors in terms of influencing the conservation. Yeah, I haven't. This is, again, this is CICR. This is not ACSC. So, you know, donors are definitely someone that we want to be speaking to. Right now, you know, kind of holding on from that to putting the ACSC process around the woods there. Thank you very much.