 Let me see what I can do to try to summarize this. First of all, we heard that there are multiple types of utility that contribute to clinical utility and that CSER can contribute to. And we heard from Ewan about trying to have this group focus on the technological aspects of genome sequencing that would make sure that, as we've heard about already this morning, that things like structural variation and repeats are given special attention in CSER 2.0 because of their possible clinical relevance and their overrepresentation in that. And maybe that will relate to some questions of exome versus genome sequencing. And we heard about maybe one method maybe related to the technological aspects is to have CSER link to other resources or perhaps to consider funding within CSER more work on interpreting functional variants, the functional consequence of variants in laboratory models that would be able to link on characterized variants to more functional studies and make sure to keep track of any relevant clinical information for those characterized variants and that it would be helpful to specify how to make connections with other programs looking at functional significance. So we talked about utility basically being an examination of benefits versus risks of using the genetic results and a little bit about whether that should be assessed at the level of the individual or at a larger healthcare system or societal level. And questions were asked about how big the clinical benefit needs to be. I noticed that pharmacogenetics got singled out there. I guess I would put that in a higher category of importance than it sounded like maybe it was. And including things like giving value to is there a value to making a diagnosis even if it's not terribly clinically actionable. And in this context of trying to figure out clinical utility, the point was raised that genetics often holds itself to a higher standard than other parts of medicine and maybe CSER could consider encouraging work that would have comparative effectiveness of genetic intervention versus other interventions that are widely adopted in medicine. We get CSER's done a good job of measuring outcomes in some randomized trials, relatively small trials, but they're seen as value in continuing those kinds of randomized trials, even if the outcomes are things like do you make a new diagnosis, but also to deepen CSER's evaluation of outcomes in the future to include assessments of morbidity and mortality to be able to do deeper phenotyping and repeat phenotyping on patients with rare genotypes and to explore the utility of aggregating methods or develop methods for aggregating rare genotypes for phenotypes. We didn't talk a lot about, but it was mentioned the importance of CSER dealing with population screening and maybe that's where preemptive screening for pharmacogenetics is something that could also be of interest for CSER as it goes forward and it was mentioned that in the future for clinical utility evaluations having CSER open to other groups would also be helpful. Thank you very much to the panel. I think we're ready to break for lunch.