I understand.
My other question relates back even further on the timeline. The Auditor General's report from 1998 says that both of these projects--referring to the MAPLE reactors--involved significant risk to AECL. It talks about tight timelines and budgets and unexpected regulatory events.
I think the term you used when you were talking earlier in your testimony was high technological risk. At what point was this known to be a high technological risk? Was this from day one known to be a very risky project, which is what it turned out to be? Or was it thought to be new technology but with high probability and only later was it understood that it was a high-risk problem, as it turned out to be?