Mr. McCloud.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

I'd like to start today by noting that much of my friend's argument had little to do with the question presented.

The question presented today is important but narrow.

Can a plaintiff state a plausible claim for a breach of the duty of prudence based on a comparison of two funds that aren't meaningfully similar? And as Judge Miller's opinion explained for the Ninth Circuit below, the answer is no for multiple reasons.

You can start with ERISA's text and purpose.

I mean, you've been very accepting of various proposals about what it might mean, but I wonder if you could give us, uh, a, a narrower understanding, or maybe the answer is you can't, in which case maybe the decision we issue won't be much help at all.