Yeah, I think compensation in both the for profit and the nonprofit sectors has fallen prey to, to good intentions that lead to bad results around ideas around pay equity. So what they're trying to do is they're like, Oh, my goodness, we want to avoid unfairly compensating people to too little for the role because of historical injustice is because of an subconscious bias, or, or many other things that would lead to not paying somebody what they're worth. And so because of this good intention of solving that problem, people have turned toward things like pay bands, right of trying to make sure hey, you know, with anyone who's got this role, we're going to make sure they're within this band and things like that. And, and I just think that that's a big, big mistake. And here's what we ended up doing is we end up diminishing people to their job description, right, and characteristics about themselves and trying to make sure those things all match up. So we take a completely different approach to compensation that stand together Foundation, and it's one that I think is the most important thing an organization can do to drive equity in their pay, which is to make sure that we have a compensation philosophy that is highly individualized, and make sure that that at any given time that we match the total compensation for an individual to their total contribution to the organization, not looking forward. But looking backward. Let me explain what I mean by that. If we're at the end of the year, and we look back and we say who cares what they made in base salary, that person made a contribution that's worth. Let's take an example of someone, someone made a contribution and you're saying, If I were to go to the market to get that contribution from anyone, I'd have to pay $100,000 to get that kind of contribution from someone. And I paid that person $50,000 in base salary in the previous year. We would pay them a $50,000 bonus. Right? And that leads us there So, the reason the reason why we would do that is because we want a win win relationship with our employees at all times looking backward. Because if at anytime we're profiting off of our employees, they make sure that we pay them as little as we can to get the most contribution. Well, we might have gotten in the short term, right, lower cost, higher yield, but that employee is going to go look for employment elsewhere, somewhere that will pay them what they're actually worth. So we don't like that win loss relationship, we want a win win relationship with every employee all the time, and it incentivizes them to make the most contribution because they know who cares what my base salary is, I'm going to make the biggest contribution I can and we every year, we look at every single person's pay, and we look at it blindly, right? Don't even look at what their base comp was. We say, what what contribution did they make we we price that number, and then we say, well, what was their base, and then we make them whole for whatever the difference is. Now, some roles are going to be more predictable, right, some of our entry level roles and what have you, their base salary is going to make up a larger percentage of their total comp, because we can kind of predict, right what type of contribution they might make. But if they, if they surprise us, we still pay him for the total amount. And as you get your leaders, your leaders are gonna have more variability, they, you know, they might make really great decisions and your organization might drive transformative change, or we might make really poor decisions, and you do worse that year. And so our leaders who are hold more of their pay at risk than perhaps the average employee at our organization. But we do the same philosophy for every single employee. And here's the way this gets at the equity point, and then I'll I'll let you jump in.