 Let's now turn to the third-party assessor with Silvera. So Sam, Sam Gill, is co-founder and CEO of Silvera. We've heard from Annette Nazareth how the principles are important to set the basis for proper qualification of projects from a carbon credit emission standpoint. So Sam, with Silvera, what's the role of a third-party? How would you feature your role in the value chain? Thank you so much. So yeah, just to introduce Silvera, and maybe we'll move on to the next slide. Silvera is a company that's providing data to the whole private sector, but also the public sector to try and power the transition. So giving data that's actually showing the impacts and the climate impacts are various investments that are made by the public sector or the private sector. And so when we're working in the carbon markets, what we're trying to do is empower participants with data to show the real kind of impact of any projects that they're investing in. And what we produce is essentially a ratings product showing the relative quality of each carbon offset project. So the individual project that a corporate or a public sector participant might be investing in. And so the difference that when you compare our work with the ICBCM is that essentially the ICBCM is trying to produce listing standards, so almost a quality floor. And the ICBCM is applying those CCPs at the program, the crediting program, and the methodology level. Whereas what we do is we actually assess at the project level using very similar pillars of assessment. So for example, our ratings actually assess the CCPs that relate to climate integrity. But we're doing that at a project level. And so the three key pillars of quality that we look at are the carbon performance of the project. So assessing the carbon accounting that the project produces itself. So if it was, for example, a direct air capture project, we'd be looking at the life cycle analysis of the project, looking at the displacement effects of the power consumption. Whereas for example, we were looking at forestry protection project, we'd be assessing using our own machine learning and satellite data. We'd be assessing whether the reporting of the project is produced is accurate. So looking at how has the project actually protected the amount of trees that it's claimed? How much carbon is stored in those trees? How much carbon is stored in the soil around it? And so we're essentially using an independent technological stack to assess the claims of the project. The second thing we do is we look at the additionality of the project. So looking at the counterfactual projects based on, and again, assessing at the project level, whether the methodology has been assessed and applied in an appropriate way or whether there's been an over-crediting risk that's been introduced. And then the third thing we look at is the durability of these projects. So essentially what we're doing again is using a methodology, a technology stack to assess independently the claims of the project at the project level so that we can give with a high degree of accuracy an assessment of the quality of each individual project. So it's a very complementary approach to the methodology level assessments that are being applied by the ICBCM. Yeah. Yeah. Great. And definitely your bridging corporate demand to the project level. So we've heard efforts on the ICBCM front. What would you see as the key factors for boosting the voluntary carbon market moving forward given your position in the value chain, Sam? That's a really interesting question. In many ways, that's the million-dollar question. I think, you know, I spend a lot of time with C-suite executives in the private sector but also policymakers around the globe who are kind of wrestling with this. And I think, you know, Annette really helpfully split the problem into two sides. You've got the supply side quality problem and then you've got the demand side integrity problem. On the supply side, I think we're very close to getting to an answer. The data sort of approaches that are being applied by folks like ourselves, Silvera and others are allowing us to get to with quite a high degree of accuracy and granularity and assessment of the quality of any individual project. And we're also increasingly strengthening the methodologies that are used to produce these credits. But I think what the world needs to agree on is what is the paradigm that we're working to? We're not going to be able to get to absolute 100% certainty on the accounting around any of these projects, frankly. And we also need to come to a clear paradigm around the permanence or durability requirements that we're going to ask the market to meet. So for example, if we were all to agree that if, you know, a carbon credit needs to be stored carbon for 100 years, for example, to be acceptable, that would allow the market to start engineering, for example, horizontal or vertical stacking approaches to allow different types of carbon to be used in portfolios. And it would allow us to start regularizing and standardizing the market. But at the moment, there's no clear consensus there on what the actual quality paradigm we're working towards is. So I think there needs to be a clear accepted consensus around the quality paradigm we're working towards. And then on the flip side, Annette refers to the work of the VCMI, which is the demand side integrity body. But again, what is needed is a much wider consensus around what are we asking corporates to do in terms of compensation? So where they're not able to reduce their emissions to absolute zero, what are we asking them to do? What do they get to claim if they compensate their emissions with carbon credits? And what benefit will they actually receive for that? Are they going to get tax breaks? Are they going to get preferential treatment in the capital markets? Are they going to be rewarded in some way? Because the private sector can't act as a charity. So I think that those consensus on the supply side integrity and the demand side integrity paradigms are completely necessary to allow the markets to now move forward in scale. Clearly, a typical market dynamic between supply and demand. So thank you. That's insightful, Sam.