No, no worries. So I'm the Lexington representative to H fac. And I sort of was tasked with trying to consolidate the comments that Christopher and Emily and I had a number of comments myself. And I think the approach we're taking is sort of like what Jim said, we're going to try to have a sort of a simple set of points. And then we'll probably have an appendix that has some of the detail that Christopher enumerated, but have it as a sort of a separate part of the document. The one thing that is in the document that I've been working on that hasn't been mentioned yet that I thought was important, was basically the forecasting methodology that Massport is using. So they have this very, I think loosey goosey kind of way of talking about on this one just want to say that there's a commonly accepted relationship between the local economy and GA activity at Hanscom fields, and they they really sort of go from there to sort of say A, you know, basically to have a curve of growth, that doesn't really take into account other variables or things that might happen in the world, you know, for example, just changes in the regulatory environment, or the taxation environment. So, you know, my, my point, there was just that, that, and the reason it's important is, of course, the DIR is using this projection, which they, you know, which they say, is just a projection and is, you know, it's only a guess, they're kind of using it as the basis for saying, This is why we need all this infrastructure. So, you know, I, I think it's reasonable for them to present more than one scenario of growth, and possibly even to explain why, you know, there might be a decline in the amount of aviation based on things that happened in the world. So I just thought that, you know, they, they inherited this model from the FAA again, but they really could do a better job of just even being a lot crisper and justifying this growth curve, or explaining it's very, you know, explaining its limitations.