 So, I mentioned the dysfunctional arguing about theory and practice and academics and all of that. And what we eventually came up with was a series of three what we're now calling lenses for thinking about trade-offs. And what we want to stress in this framework is that each lens does something very well and it does other things not so well. Each lens focuses you on a particular slice of reality but it also blinds you if you take it on its own to other aspects of reality. It's also important to stress that none of these three map onto particular academic perspectives or fields of practice. Evaluation process and power. I'll go over it. And that's, I think, important. All right, let me talk about evaluation. Evaluation is all those things like ecosystem services. One of the, for instance, and this is not my area of expertise, but one of the case studies in one of our workshops was from Peru, the area called Sierra de la Disorder. It's an area on the Brazilian border still relatively intact rainforest. And in fact, there is a very large area of several tens of thousands of hectares for, hundreds of thousands of hectares for essentially uncontacted people. And so it's in some real kind of out of the way place. There's also a very large national park. What's not a national park, it's a national, it's kind of in a pre-executive phase. At the same time, it's all been mapped out for timber extraction and oil mining. You know, the maps overlap. They're both government maps from different ministries. Now, if you were to do an ecosystem services analysis of that context, so, you know, what should we do about that place? What I think an analysis would tell you is that it's actually probably better to cut it all down. Because, and I'm being sort of, I'm honest here in saying this, there's about 400 or 600 uncontacted indigenous people. And by the way, all the water flows to Brazil. So, who cares about Brazil if you're Peruvian? As opposed to the, you know, 20 million or so, however many million people live in Lima, on the coast of Peru, who would benefit from the oil extraction, from the establishment of, you know, biofuels and so forth. So I think, you know, very possibly need assistance services analysis would tend toward extraction and so forth. So, but valuation also addresses those issues of comparability, commensurability. When are things comparable? And when are they not? And of course, you know, we've seen a proliferation of multi-criteria decision-making models that presumably tell you that you can't compare apples and oranges, that you can't put a price on your green mother's grave at number. And so forth. And this is something that's subject to debate in the literature and different models and different frameworks that we've worked with. The valuation approach deals with all those kinds of questions, the essential issue of comparability, aggregatability, and so forth. And so some of the, you know, questions you ask from evaluations about what counts was being kind of empowered, values counted at different scales, prioritized what's not being counted, our values of conflict, and how our values will trade it off. So that's sort of one body, so one way of thinking about the world. Then there's a process lens, the second lens. And the process lens, the previous one, the value lens, is premised on a fundamental faith that things are comparable, potentially at least, or at the very least, that at least some big slices of reality can be aggregated, compared, and so forth. And that you can actually measure things and make a decision based on those measurements. So that's an article of faith. The process lens is based on the faith that if you get the right institutions, you get the right people at the table. This harks back, of course, to a lot of people. A C4 pioneer. So this in itself is nothing new, but I think identifying it in conjunction with these others is useful. But it's based on fundamental faith that if you do it right, if you just get it right, then we'll be able to make fair, equitable, and sustainable trade-offs. And so questions are, who's at the table? What voices are being heard? Who's not included? Scalar issues? How are those being managed? One of the institutions? How are the decisions implemented? In Vietnam, we have one senior member of the Communist Party in charge of a new ministry who said, oh, great, this family will be great for helping us make decrees. We're like, wait a minute. But who's accountable? And then finally, we have the power lens. And the power lens tells you when it kind of pulls the fundamental faith out from under you a little bit and says, there are inequities. There are differential capacities in any context. There's unequal access to information or the ability to use information. Obviously, there are explicit forms of power. If a national parks agency comes in with guns and says, all you guys, you're moving out of this protected area, you don't need a subtle analysis of power to understand that. But we make a distinction between those explicit forms of power and they certainly exist in the world and we've seen them all work, but also more implicit forms of power that are informed by a need to understand more intrinsic forms of power that may not be quite so obvious or visible. We've seen some of this stuff analyze a number of anthropologist geographers and others have kind of developed some of that work.