Whether or not it's an inclusive or fair way, I can't comment on whether that actually is the case. I just hope that it is the case, right? So a couple of things come to mind. So first and foremost, so what I do is I export the data into a spreadsheet. So I'm literally just looking things by column. So I actually, you know how in applications, oftentimes you start with the name, I put any identifying information at the very end. And the reason for that is so I can see them for their expertise first. It is not the end all be all determination, but it is my first point of call. And the reason why I chose to do that is because, because it's actually at the time of my first event anyway, because I'm working on my second at the time of my first event, it was only me choosing. So I can't pretend that there's no bias whatsoever, you know, but I can significantly reduce it. And one of the decisions I made was to put my name or ask for their name and email at the very end. And so the first thing was asking about, you know, what was their topic they wanted to propose for this event. Is about sustainable visibility. What's your interpretation of that, and how does your expertise lend to that, right? So at least from there, I'm like, basically doing my first scan, I guess, just from topics alone, and doing that without identifying information, allows me to pick someone who's purely in event alignment with the topic, right? And then I'm able to start weeding from there. And then the next stage would be looking at the identities question. So that question that I mentioned earlier, like, to whichever degree you're open to sharing about your identities, that is what I'd look at next. And it's because I am mindful of representation. But the reason why I do the topics first is so I'm not picking because of their identity. You know, that's when, to me, it feels like it's checking the box, then it feels like it's dipping into tokenism territory. And I can't pretend that that doesn't happen, right? I'm sure to some degree I must tokenize at some point, but this is my way of currently handling the selection process by names, later, identifying information, later, expertise first, and then their lived experience later, with their identities, and then, of course, after that, I factor into things like their audience alignment. So something that I know you're very passionate about, that you you know might you shouldn't pick a speaker that doesn't have the same audience, otherwise you're not really going to help each other right at the end of the day. You want it to be a symbiotic relationship with your speakers for your Summit. So that is why audience alignment is also kind of going to count. And then I think I had more like, they weren't non negotiables, they're more like nice to have. So I would look to see their social media presence, I would look at their website. But again, they are not determining factors by any means. And I remember there was one situation where there was two people, they were, like, they pretty much had the same identity cocktail, I guess they had, like, the same topic, pretty much both very interesting, both about boundaries. And then what I looked further into was like, Is this like a one off topic for you that you're not really known for, but you can talk about? Versus, is it a core aspect of your business. And that, to me, was the determining factor for these two speakers I remember picking between. And it just so happens that the person I chose was actually a business friend of mine, but I didn't know that until I looked at her name, right? So all of these, all of these things that I do factor into my selection process. So topic, first, identity, second, audience alignment, their their online presence, so their website, social media, like these last two, again, they are like, nice to haves, right? And then the fifth one would be, is it a one off part of your work, or is it actually a core part of your work? Oh