So what does that actually look like in the practice? Could you please walk us through your thought process when you are building the architecture?

Well, as you pointed out earlier, with a background, uh, working with DuPont and exposure to Six Sigma and ISO when it was just starting, these are things that have kind of guided a lot of my process thinking going forward.

And so how that translated into CaseReady Intake AI is I have a ten-page charter that every AI decision is, um, audited or able to be audited by anyone.

And in the case of governance in motion, if you will, before launch, doing a audit for UPL exposure, the unlicensed practice of law, which cannot do, things were discovered that delayed my launch date, and I had a critical reason for picking the launch date that I did.

But as a result of this audit and this ten-page charter, I missed my launch date by two weeks, but I had to do that to be in compliance with UPL.

So the other thing it does for me, though, is every architectural decision that is implemented, it is documented.

The idea is a human in the loop then can be audited, so the decision that was made, when it was made, why it was made, and all of that is logged.

Without giving away the full playbook, what was the class of decision that drove that, and how does cost architecture intersect with compliance requirements in your product or even some of the practices that you built using AI s-so far?