Thank you.
The scope has not changed at all. I just want to correct any misleading interpretation that people may have had from listening to Dr. Ellis.
This is all about the preamble. To set the context right, no one is questioning the need for some accountability here and proceeding with the study as it is clearly written out in the amended motion.
The reason that we have concern over leaving the preamble as it is is that it implies that there is $300 million that was lost, which is not true. There's a conflation there between two different figures. I must say that Mr. Perkins described the case I think quite clearly, as he has obviously studied this well, and perhaps Dr. Ellis can learn from that.
Therefore, the $300 million as written in the preamble is misleading. That's the reason for just clarifying and simplifying this motion.