Tell us more.

Sure, yeah.

So we had three different, uh, stops that we had for this year's tour.

We stopped in Crawford County at Steve Reinhard's farm, stopped in Fayette County down at Bluegrass Farms, and then we also stopped in Darke County at Mark Stuckey's farm.

Um, appreciate all three of those locations giving us use of their space, uh, for the day.

Um, but we were really excited this year.

We focused a lot on value back to farmers.

How'd the tour go? And maybe some of the checkoff presentations that we heard.

Sure.

Yeah.

So we had three different stops that we had for this year's tour.

We stopped in Crawford County at Steve Reinhardt's farm.

stopped in Fayette County down at Bluegrass Farms, and then we also stopped in Dart County at Mark Stuckey's Farm.

Appreciate all three of those locations giving us use of their space for the day.

Obviously, you get Q&A that goes on during the presentations, but I'm curious, what was some of the side talk afterwards as you heard comments from farmers about the different topics that were covered within that, whether it's where we're seeing the use in Ohio or whether it's the soy foam or the international trade? What type of comments did you hear from folks?

There must be weeks where you're exhausted from thinking so much.

It can get overwhelming to think about it all.

Yeah.

But no, you're right.

And a lot of it because we're sort of sitting in genomic space where even just looking at DNA tells you what something could potentially do, right? We can't even say with the sort of data that we're looking at that it's actually doing what it looks like it's probably doing.

And so I do think that a lot of what we do is hypothesis generating.

And I will say what I love about that particular study that was published in the New York Times where we looked at single-celled eukaryotes, so little protists.

It can be all about your stuff.

So walk us through how what you're doing connects to assignments, how the military can then maybe optimize best fit for the position.

Yeah, absolutely.

So at a high level, what we're doing is really building a richer understanding of both sides of the equation.

That is on the side of the individual and a profile that reflects the various competencies, skills, experience, and qualifications that they have demonstrated over time.

And then on the position side, we also define the capabilities required for successful performance.

The system then takes those things and competencies provide that common language to do so and compares the profiles and identifies areas of alignments.

So instead of asking traditionally, does this person belong to the right career field? It's how closely does this person's capability profile align with what this mission set and this position actually requires? So we surface all of that information within the assignments But we still, very importantly, rely on human judgment to be the final decision makers to evaluate this broader pool of candidates and uncover what the strong matches might be.

How do you... balance that in the models that you're thinking of general competency leadership attributes versus specific skill competency?

So walk us through how what you're doing connects to assignments, how the military can then maybe optimize best fit for the position.

Yeah, absolutely.

So at a high level, what we're doing is really building a richer understanding of both sides of the equation.

That is on the side of the individual and a profile that reflects the various competencies, skills, experience, and qualifications that they have demonstrated over time.

And then on the position side, we also define the capabilities required for successful performance.

The system then takes those things and competencies provide that common language to do so and compares the profiles and identifies areas of alignments.

So instead of asking traditionally, does this person belong to the right career field? It's how closely does this person's capability profile align with what this mission set and this position actually requires? So we surface all of that information within the assignments But we still, very importantly, rely on human judgment to be the final decision makers to evaluate this broader pool of candidates and uncover what the strong matches might be.

How do you balance that in the models that you're thinking of? General competency, leadership attributes versus specific skill competency?