 Is it on? Yeah. So this is the presentation that was prepared by Sebastian Terns and myself. And first of all, the scope of the fact sheet is, I think, a little bit more brief than the previous one. So it is about what is the value of information in overview where we can expect a positive value of information in application. And then, of course, the appraisal and ideas for further progress in this area, where we need to improve and hope for more contributions. So a general value of information, as probably already known by all of you, is the difference between two benefits we might realize in a system. One system, B0 in this diagram by Faber, Terns, and Wall from the last workshop in Copenhagen, is a benefit that was realized without a structural health monitoring system. And value B is the value or the benefit realized with a structural health monitoring system. And the difference of these two is then the overall value of information we can gather with the structural health monitoring system. This is part of a decision process. So that means those two values or benefits, B1 and B0, should be the maximum you can achieve. Oh, sorry. Application areas. This is mainly based on an iris working document, I think, 580 by Hamd-Wenzel. This has five main topics or five main categories. First of all, optimization of structures and portfolio of structures. A very important one is service life extension, as Mr. Wenz already introduced in his own keynote presentation. Then we have utilization modification, for example, a road bridge that is facing increasing traffic or a maybe repowering of a wind energy turbine. Then we have damage progression monitoring or maybe better called now performance changes. So for example, in a structure, known damages like a crack might be monitored to get a clear view of the performance of the structure is still delivering. Then we have the second part as code making and code calibration. So here the information we can gain is very valuable to reduce uncertainties and improve the design codes. That means maybe a reduction in construction and design costs for future structures. The third point would be then aid. The third point would be then a early damage warning or again a maybe reduction in structural performance. So the system can help to improve rehabilitation and inspection planning. The fourth point, structure prototype development and design by testing. So if a new structure, a probably new, completely new type of structure is developed, the prototype might be equipped with monitoring systems that give valuable information about the performance and of course also this will improve the design in a optimization process to more efficiently design the structure in the finished product. And of course, whereas we can improve the design of a structural system by employing a structural health monitoring system, we can of course also use SHM prototype systems to optimize SHM systems themselves. And there are two further points listed that are relatively young and not so well developed at the moment. One of them is resilience of structures. This is something Daniel Houghney talked about during the first cost workshop and then also, of course, retrofitting of SHM to historical buildings where especially uncertainties are large due to the fact that these buildings might not be built to any known design code and large uncertainties are involved in these. Some major challenges for structural health monitoring and its value of information are, first of all, often mentioned the computational efforts. The large amount of information that is gathered has to be analyzed and put into decision systems, decision support systems to finally get the value of information. And then the assessment and modeling of SHM triggered actions. Here it is important, of course, that the right decision is derived from the information that is provided by the monitoring system. Then probabilistic models, in general, to be refined, so the model for the measurement system, the model for the structural system itself have a high influence, of course, on the value that is in the end calculated. And then the decision support or the decision process is a major topic. If the decision support system is well developed and efficient, then also the decision that might be supported by the gained information is straightforward and useful if there is a lack of, or a big lack in the decision support system, then this will also, of course, negatively influence the value of information. Well, a big issue for value of information, in general, is that this field is an engineering very costly covered in the context of many systems. So it is not systematically and consistently quantified for many applications. And the decision support systems connected with them are also often not very well established or well defined. There are also some so far, hardly realized potentials, especially for new SHM systems where the developers and researchers in that area might not be aware of the value of information to assess their structural health money system or new technology beforehand to see what the real potential benefit is their system might realize for their clients and their research. And thus, the cost action should, of course, try to spread the knowledge about value of information through researching and other kinds or through education, other kinds of dissemination. So thank you. Oh, thank you very much. Now there is some change in the program of this session. So.