Okay, so that animation you've done is actually pretty spectacular, and we actually are very, very close to have a really great visualization of this. So, so what you need, what's missing from here? First of all, there's two things, or a couple of things are missing. One of the things that's very important is that the risks always flow upwards. So you now imply that the risks stop at the CIO. For example, when I click, say, say CRM, you have two risks, which is quite cool, actually. I really like how you've done this, because you basically map the dangerous, right? Which is update any record, export in bulk. Then you connect them, right? Um, but the risk doesn't stop with the CIO. The, the risk hits the CTO, the CEO, and the board. So what you need to do is maybe on the right, I should be able to click on each of the stakeholders like I do now, and I should be able to see the risks that they have. And what you also need to do is you need to sort of almost, and this way have to have classification, right? Because the risks and the costs, right? In a way, the severity of the risks should go higher, right? The more stuff are connected, especially once we have the trifecta, right? Suddenly you have a massive risk. But what's cool about this is that you also can start to see that each, you know, in a way, is almost the guys at the top that actually get the aggregate risks. Because in a way, if you look at the risk for the business and maybe put some quantity of impact, right, or, or potential loss or some metric, is that is actually, you know, again, look at the calendar. The calendar initially is just owned by the COO. But in the interesting thing is what you also have is What you actually have here is this idea that when I collect the calendar with the, the mail, now you have two execs that actually own it. But what's really cool is in this particular example, all the CEO actually gets the aggregate risk of both of them. And that's what we kind of want to show here, right? And, and the board gets, the, gets that, right? So we now just need a way to list them. We need to find a way to map this out, but also, You probably need a way to list the risks that exist at any moment in time. Um, and yeah, and, I, and then I really like how you start to add uh, those controls. And in fact, when you call boundaries, those are almost controls, right? And actually, this is what we actually are really doing, because what we're doing here is we're mapping the agent behavior policy, which is what, you know, we, we're mapping that blast radius, which is that behavior that he has. So yeah, have another go because this is this is really really good, and um, and also I think on here you need to have some stuff that hits the CFO, hits the legal, and also hits. Um, you might want to remove actually unless does it impact all of them. If you don't have something that connects to a particular one, we might want to remove. Like for example, you have nothing that hits marketing and product. I think in this case we don't need them because you're going to need a little bit of real estate. But you definitely need legal and you definitely need CFO, right, in this particular example. And um, um, but the rest is, is, is really cool, right? And, and in fact, actually, the other thing that would be interesting is to also show how the, um, there's also risk. So, so, for example, right, an interesting view here is that read email and write drafts and, and that, that has a risk in itself, but it's a low risk. Right, because it's part of understanding, right, of of this. Um, although, actually looking at this, you know, read, yeah, but that's in this particular example, because we could have another example where, uh, unless you can do these scenarios, but let's now do keep it like this, right? But I think the point is read email also has some risks, right? Um, where act as the rep, actually no, right? In fact, I think probably what you want to do here is to distinguish this a little bit more where you have read email and read all email, right? Because that's different, right? Uh, actually, you should, you should say read email of rep, right? Which is different than um, read all email that exists there. Unless you don't think that's relevant, but I think that's, that's kind of powerful. Because we kind of want to show also that there is a level of risk that is accepted for the business. The point is when you go outside that, and that's kind of what we want to say. Because business understands the risk. But um, we could um, you know, add some of these. Cool, that looks like that. Looks like.