And I think you, Claire and all the others in this space are trying to get it to settle in a strategic C-level position, which the role truly is not something else that's...

Well, you know, that's an interesting perspective because it's...

You know, when you think of where it's traditionally... understood and used there is only one version of it like in terms of who is given the title like if you're a chief of staff in the military that is there's a rank on your shoulder like there's some way to know that like oh that that's what that person does when you walk in the room it's a very consistent experience for those that are on the receiving end of of you in that role Um, the government, you know, probably would be where things start to level a little bit because you'll have chiefs of staff to local official officials who will carry themselves differently than chiefs of staff to United States senators.

So that's where you're starting to see some, some, uh, where the scope kind of goes out a little bit.

So I wouldn't say that, that, um, I definitely feel like there is a need to determine where is the role at its optimal scope and leverage.

So I think the conversation needs to be oriented in that direction.

For folks that find themselves early career, that are chiefs of staff, whose roles are highly technical, not so strategic, it doesn't mean they don't have a path to that.

Right.