Per, was there a specific paper or a result within a paper or an example in this section that surprised you or made you think differently about where quantitative interpretation is headed?

Yeah, I think the FWI paper was actually standing out as something that kind of showed us sort of moving into the quantitative interpretation a little bit faster than I was expecting because we knew having worked in quantitative interpretation, I've seen the advances of FWI over the last few years from the imaging point of view and the velocity models.

And we know there has been huge progress in FWI over the last decade or even longer.

But in the last few years, we've seen that it's been pushing into the QI domain.

And when I saw this paper actually demonstrating the prediction of elastic parameters like impedance and VPS and showing the improvement of those compared to more conventional QI or inversion approaches, I was maybe even surprised that we could already now see these results.

And you could say that is that almost a little bit scary, because does that mean that, hey, our traditional workflows are threatened? But I think what I also saw is that, which was actually very nicely written in that paper, was that rock physics, the use of rock physics and quantitative interpreters as part of the workflow of the FWI inversion, bringing it to the QI domain, it's really crucial to have that integration throughout the process.

So we'd actually not only gives us additional attributes or ways to predict the elastic properties, but actually makes us more...

What do you wish more people understood about uncertainty when involved with QI?