What have you learned about the process that affects the quality of the final code?

I think the process is it's imperfect because there are people involved.

It's inherently going to be that, but it certainly, at the national level, has improved where at least you know who you're working with and most of the time who they're affiliated with, what their interests are, and I think that fosters the opportunity and the ability to create consensus, and that so much of what we do in the large production home builder world is just really around what's predictable and what we can anticipate, not just now, but several years into the future.

And I think the national process has gone a long way in the positive direction with the way that the IECC is created, and I've got a lot more optimism in the future with some of the new approaches that are being taken for the twenty-thirty code.

And then I've also worked at the local and regional level, and a lot of that is back to credibility and being able to show up, do your homework, have, as I mentioned before, people that can articulate the way things are playing out in the field.

Lawmakers, code officials, a lot of times don't want to see the forty-page study that you may have, and you may be excited that you were able to curate.

They just want to know how's it going to affect constituents on the ground back to the ability to attain homes and deal with the housing challenges that we have from coast to coast in this country.

Phil, if a governor, mayor, building official, or HERS rater, for example, took away one idea from this conversation, what would you want that idea to be?