So what is it that's still going wrong? Why do headline export figures fail to show whether the system is working for a broader range of companies and products? Why, I suppose my question is, did you feel the need to write this paper?

So yeah, thank you for the question and I think we should start by recognizing that Uzbekistan has made real progress and the economy has become much more open since 2017 and even trend procedures have been digitalized and the exports also have grown substantially but the Headline export number does not tell us how easy it is for an ordinary Uzbek company to become an exporter.

So there is, I would say, two figures that illustrate this aspect very well.

In 2024, Uzbekistan exported about $27 billion, but around 28% of that was gold.

Gold is obviously important for the economy, but it does not go through the same procedures as a company exporting textiles, fruit or processed food.

And the World Bank reported that only around 6% of Uzbek firms export.

So for me, the real question is not simply are experts growing? The question is, can more companies and more types of products reach foreign markets easily and predictably? So that's the main question and the main question which should be just maybe clarified and answered.

What are these two layers? Just so listeners and then readers can understand, I think just to preempt your answer a little bit, are you talking about how the government is becoming better at setting targets and then monitoring export performance that is not necessarily becoming that much better at improving the experience of individual exporters?