This may get us slightly ahead of ourselves, but I think it’s important to what we’re asked to do now. It makes sense to get people to focus on how comfortable they are with what has been on the table regarding the range of options on projections and to say what they’re comfortable with and what they’re not comfortable with. But as I see this plan, you’re still building in some time for refinement over the next several months to get this to the point where it’s ready for prime time. So I don’t think you’re asking people—you really can’t because you’re not quite there yet—to commit right now to views on all specific attributes of this. It seems to me you’re a step short of that. Broad elements of the package on projections would then provide a basis for the subcommittee and the staff to refine this further over the next several months. That’s what I understood the plan to be. I think you’re right, Cathy—there’s a lot here. You can get a lot from asking people to give that broader orientation and still recognize that this is going to need a little refinement. Is that fair, Don?