Talk by Jonathan Gordon (ReWeaver AI) on why the design-to-code "roundtrip" — a full bidirectional loop with no fidelity loss and persistent provenance between design and code — remains unsolved. Drawing on three decades building developer tools, he explains why design and engineering handoffs never closed, recounts a "vibe coding" moment where an agent emitted innerHTML as an injection risk, and describes testing five tool setups that all proved lossy. He then demonstrates ReWeaver, a harness pairing generated code with a Figma canvas and a "show drift" report covering dimensions such as design quality, performance, tokens, and accessibility. A twelve-iteration test showed pure model output starting near 30% fidelity and decaying while deterministic guardrails held it up; full fidelity never reaches 100% because the final judgment is human. He frames unwatched drift as a new form of tech debt. # Video Identity Observations — "The Design-Code Roundtrip That Isn't — Jonathan Gordon, ReWeaver AI" ## Speaker / Channel Self-Identification - **Speaker name and role stated directly:** > "I'm Jonathan Gordon. I'm a founder of Reweaver AAI, a new company, you know, on the scene, let's say." - **Background claim made by the speaker:** > "past 30 plus years um I've been building and designing coding tools developer tools idees at these companies" - Claims specific past work at **Microsoft on accessibility**: > "at Microsoft I worked on accessibility and I learned a lot about what it means to build an accessible software system." - Note: companies were referenced on slides ("at these companies") but are not named in the transcript itself. ## Explicit Self-Description of the Product / Company - **ReWeaver AI is presented as a new company with an unreleased product:** > "this is real rewaver code for the first time introduced to the public ever." - **Product positioning claims:** - Detects drift between AI-generated code and design: > "Rewaver stacks up issues and you know basically scans scans the code and scans the design and produces u guard rails to a sense but also a way to fix the code and make it better." - **Nine dimensions of deterministic guardrails**, including design consistency, accessibility, and AI code generation governance. - **Cost and control claims:** > "with Ruby Weaver, there's zero extra token costs. So, we're fully local LLM, but if you want to open up Claude or whatever and connect to us, you can." > "our core principle is the human is in control always." - **Does not autonomously write code:** > "rewaver actually doesn't write code you write code reweaver will do what you want it to do." ## Intended Audience - **Designers, engineers, and product/developer-tool practitioners** — evidenced by: - Framing around the **design-to-engineering handoff**: "how do we hand off from design to code how do we get what we wanted to be delivered to the customer." - Technical depth on **design systems, tokens, components, inner HTML security, ARIA live regions, screen readers**. - References to tools the audience is presumed to know: **Figma, Sketch, Claude Code, Cursor, Figma Config**: > "I think folks in the room might remember back in February, no slam on anthropic or Figma, there was this demo that showed going from cloud code into Figma." - The talk is delivered as a **live conference/user-group presentation** — indicated by stage-mechanics moments ("I plugged in my laptop and I realized I had to mirror"), audience laughter noted in transcript, and an in-person invitation: > "I'm looking for people to join our beta... would love for you to join if you're interested." ## Claimed Scope of the Presentation - **Central thesis / claimed scope:** The design-code roundtrip is not actually solved by current tools. > "the design code roundtrip is a full loop between design and engineering in both directions without any loss of fidelity and with a persistent provenence." > "they said the roundtrip was solved and I started messing around and realized it wasn't." - **Evidence he presents for the claim:** - Personal "vibe coding" history (top 0.1% Cursor usage claim via an email he cites). - A DIY test **harness** comparing AI-generated code against Figma/Sketch designs with a "show drift" feature. - An experiment: **five tool setups** attempted bidirectional roundtrips — "lots of lossy issues... bindings were lost... design change survived but code didn't." - A **12-iteration experiment**: "started at 30% quality, 30% fidelity" without guardrails; with deterministic guardrails quality improved but "You can't get to a hundred because that 10% is human judgment." - **Key conceptual claims advanced:** > "drift over time is the new tech debt and it's going to pile itself gloriously over your codebase." > "the agents are in control and the humans in the loop. I'd like to propose something else." (i.e., human in control, AI in the loop) ## Calls to Action (Observable Presentation Choices) - **Product playground / challenge:** > "you can go to reweaver AIPplayground... If you can get AI to generate code that gives you a score lower than30 PDR, which is production drift ratio, will get you a frontline seat on the beta." - **Beta recruitment:** "We're going to basically blast out mid July hopefully." ## Claims vs. Demonstrated Patterns (Separation) - **Explicit creator claims (about channel/company/product):** new company; first public showing of ReWeaver code; nine guardrail dimensions; zero extra token costs; fully local LLM; beta launching mid-July. These are **assertions, not independently verified** within the video. - **Observable demonstrations:** live demo of the harness with a "show drift" issue list (including the ARIA live region accessibility finding), and a stated but not fully shown experiment methodology (five tool setups, 12 iterations, "30% quality" figures — results are **reported**, not demonstrated in the transcript). - **Unverified detail:** the URL "reweaver AIPplayground" appears to be a garbled transcription of a web address; the exact URL is not clearly established from the transcript. # Delivery Observations — Jonathan Gordon, "The Design-Code Roundtrip That Isn't" ## Overall Tone - **Conversational, self-deprecating humor**: jokes about losing speaker notes, AI reliance, and Cursor usage. - > "Who knows if it got it right. I don't know. Whatever." - > "I thought to myself, I need to spend more time outside." - **Candid, informal qualifiers**: frequent "um," "you know," "blah blah," giving an unpolished, demo-style delivery. ## Recurring Phrases & Motifs - **"Drift" as a central repeated term** — the anchor concept of the talk: - > "Drift lurks in the dark." - > "drift over time is the new tech debt" - **Repeated superlatives for existing design tools**: - > "It's incredible. It's magic." - > "And it was magic. It was incredible." - **Repetition of "I need to look at the code"** motif: - > "Maybe I need to look at the code now." - > "You need to look at the code. You need to find the drift." - **Repeated corrective phrase "wait a minute"**: - > "Wait a minute, wait a minute... what did you just do?" ## Teaching Habits - **Definition-first structure**: defines the core term before diving in — > "probably the best thing to do first is to explain what I think a design code roundtrip should be." - **Narrative anecdotes to ground concepts**: the innerHTML security story, the Cursor email, the February Figma demo. - **Definitional asides for audience inclusion**: - > "a design system for those that don't know is composed of components and tokens..." - **Left/right spatial anchoring during demo**, with audience check: > "I'm going to say left. I hope everybody... It is your left. Okay, good." - **Honest hedging on claims**: > "I'm not going to say we're not going to get there," and > "I shouldn't say maybe, we do need tools like Reweaver." ## Live-Demo Style - **Real-time technical stumbles narrated openly**: - > "Local host, come back to me, local host." - > "Whoops. I clicked too ahead." - **"Trust me" appeals when skipping demo paths**: > "I won't go there, but trust me." ## Communication Patterns - **Numbers and specifics for credibility**: "30 plus years," "top 0.1% of usage of cursor," "five different tool setups," "12 iterations," "30% quality," "nine dimensions," "lower than 30 PDR." - **Rhythmic triads / parallel constructions**: - > "You need to look at the code. You need to find the drift. You need to fix the drift." - > "In control of cost, in control of code, in control of design." - **Sales close embedded at end**: beta invitation, playground URL, challenge — a pitch format within a talk format. - **Coining/neologizing moments flagged interactively**: > "I call it winnywig. Can I use that winny wig?" ## Uncertainty Notes - Repetition of "drift," triadic phrasing, and humor is well-supported. Whether the humor and self-deprecation reflect a deliberate strategy versus spontaneous style **cannot be determined from the transcript alone**. # Position Record: "The Design-Code Roundtrip That Isn't" — Jonathan Gordon, ReWeaver AI ## Speaker - **Jonathan Gordon**, founder of ReWeaver AI, presenting a talk on design-code roundtrip tooling. ## Core Thesis - The **design-code roundtrip** should be "a full loop between design and engineering in both directions without any loss of fidelity and with a persistent provenance." - Current industry claims that the roundtrip is solved are, per Gordon, **not true**: "they said the roundtrip was solved and I started messing around and realized it wasn't." ## Speaker's Background & Reasoning - 30+ years building developer tools/IDEs at various companies; worked on accessibility at Microsoft. - Historically, design-to-engineering handoff was "never a perfect science" — intent never fully matched outcome; he used social techniques (befriending engineers) rather than a closed loop. - Root cause stated: **outcomes diverged** — engineering had technical constraints, design had vision/rebranding. - With LLMs, "one intelligence" understands both design intent and code, so he hypothesized the loop could be closed "at the speed of inference." ## Experimental Claims - Went "all in" on vibe coding from April 2025 (claims top 0.1% Cursor usage). - **innerHTML anecdote**: he caught an LLM generating a known security-vulnerable `innerHTML` statement while he was ignoring output — concluded users "can't just go blindly in" and must inspect code. - Built a **harness** comparing AI-generated code (left) with designs (Figma/Sketch, right), with a "show drift" button (ReWeaver's first public demo). - **Five tool setups** tested for bidirectional roundtrip: "lots of lossy issues... bindings were lost... design change survived but code didn't." - Referenced February demo (Claude Code → Figma, "no slam on Anthropic or Figma") as "magic," but his deeper testing found the roundtrip unsolved; also noted Figma Config's announcement that "code is now material." - **12-iteration experiment**: pure LLM-only started at ~30% quality and degraded; with deterministic guardrails, quality improved but capped below 100% because "that 10% is human judgment." ## Positions on AI & Tooling - **Drift over time is the new tech debt** — it accumulates over codebases and "lurks in the dark." - Frustration that LLMs generate inaccessible code out of the box; compares training LLMs on accessibility to training engineers 20 years ago. - Today's state: "we're locked into AI" for design↔code, with agents in control and humans in the loop. - **Proposed alternative**: humans in control ("wYSIWYG"-style), deterministic reconciliation, provenance carried (e.g., trace a Figma button to the code line that produced it), accept-or-refuse guardrail behavior. - ReWeaver positioning: nine dimensions of deterministic guardrails (design consistency, accessibility, AI code generation governance, etc.); **fully local LLM, zero extra token costs** (external LLMs optional); ReWeaver "doesn't write code" — it applies fixes only on instruction, with undo/ignore. ## Qualifications & Uncertainty - On whether roundtrip will ever be solved: "I'm not going to say we're not going to get there... but even if we do get there... we do need tools like ReWeaver." - On human-in-the-loop: "I'm not saying loop isn't good, but human in control is I think a little more aspirational." - Opening anecdote: he used Claude to recover his speaker notes — "Who knows if it got it right. I don't know." ## Call to Action - Try the playground at ReWeaver AI's site; challenge: get AI code scoring below 30 **PDR (production drift ratio)** to win beta access/showcase. - Recruiting beta participants, targeted mid-July. # Speaker Attribution & Provenance Record ## Speakers | Speaker | Role | Evidence | |---|---|---| | Jonathan Gordon | **Creator / Presenter** | Self-identifies: "I'm Jonathan Gordon. I'm a founder of Reweaver AI"; delivers the full talk | | Audience | **Unidentified other** | Brief interaction: clarifying left/right orientation; `[laughter]` | No guests, narrators, or other named speakers appear. ## Referenced Sources & Third-Party Claims - **Claude (Anthropic)** — used by speaker to extract speaker notes from slide deck; speaker notes recovery. Speaker expresses uncertainty: "Who knows if it got it right." - **Cursor** — speaker cites an email placing him in "top 0.1% of usage"; notes subscription costs. - **Figma** — design canvas source; **"code is now material"** announcement at Figma Config (referenced as "last week"). - **Anthropic / Figma demo (February)** — demo of Claude Code generating a Figma artboard; speaker states the roundtrip claim "wasn't" solved per his testing. Speaker adds: "no slam on anthropic or Figma." - **GitHub** — speaker's own commit history shown as evidence of activity. - **Microsoft** — cited as prior employer where speaker worked on accessibility (claim of his background, not a source document). - **innerHTML security vulnerability** — cited as established knowledge from speaker's experience. ## Demonstrated Product Claims (Speaker's Own) - Live demo of a **harness**: AI-generated code on left, Figma/Sketch design on right; "Show drift" feature described as **first public introduction of ReWeaver AI code**. - Experiment claims: five tool setups for roundtrip, "lots of lossy issues"; 12-iteration experiment starting at ~30% fidelity, ~90% achievable with deterministic guardrails, remaining 10% attributed to human judgment. - Product attributes claimed: fully local LLM, "zero extra token costs," nine dimensions of deterministic guardrails, "PDR" (production drift ratio) metric. ## Promotional Segments (Flagged) - **Closing segment**: invitation to try **reweaver.ai playground**, a public challenge (score below 30 PDR for beta access and showcase), beta recruitment ("mid July"), and contact solicitation. This is explicit product promotion. - The "Show drift" demo itself doubles as a **first public product demonstration** of ReWeaver. ## Availability Limits & Uncertainty - No curated metadata supplied; no comment availability information. - Speaker's own uncertainty flagged: Claude-extracted speaker notes unverified ("Who knows if it got it right"). - Roundtrip-solved claims from industry (Anthropic/Figma) are contested by speaker's personal testing; recorded as claims, not verified facts. - Demo was live and unstable (localhost interruption), so recorded content may not fully match what occurred. Hello everyone. I'm Jonathan Gordon. I'm a founder of Reweaver AAI, a new company, you know, on the scene, let's say. I want to share one thing with all of you that was really fascinating. So, I I plugged in my laptop and I realized I had to mirror. So, I no longer have my speaker notes. So, I went into Claude and I said, "Can you extract my speaker notes from my slide deck, please?" And I had my speaker notes now. I love AI. The suspense was killing me. I was talking to Claude now. Who knows if it got it right. I don't know. Whatever. Um, so I also realized that my title slide buried the lead. I shouldn't have put it up. Um, but nonetheless, let's play with this. So, uh, yeah, my name is Jonathan. Um, I'm here to talk to you about the design code roundtrip that isn't. And I guess probably the best thing to do first is to explain what I think a design code roundtrip should be. Um the design code roundtrip is a full loop between design and engineering in both directions without any loss of fidelity and with a persistent provenence. So it knows exactly where everything came from. You know that perfect dream world that we live in where there is no drift in between the gaps of design and code. Um, today's tools, design is amazing. It's incredible. It's magic. It's I ask for something, I get it. It's clickable. It's interactive. It's amazing to me. But nobody really looks at the code anymore, it seems. And so, I kind of want to go there. I want to go into that space. Whoops. Of course, I have to get my mouse to the right location. There we go. Um, a little bit about me. past 30 plus years um I've been building and designing coding tools developer tools idees at these companies um so I've spent a lot of time with as a designer I've spent a lot of time with design and engineering teams trying to understand how do we do that handoff well how do we hand off from design to code how do we get what we wanted to be delivered to the customer um it was never a perfect science We never got it. We never found that magic sauce that just made everything come together where intent matched the outcome. Um, but I developed techniques. I negotiated with engineers. I brought them out for drinks. I made them my friends. Um, I got things delivered to customers. But the the loop was never closed. Um, and it's because our outcomes diverged. engineering had one set of requirements, technical constraints, design had a vision for the future, a new rebranding, whatever. So, this has existed, you know, dare I say, for decades. Um, then along comes AI and LLM and prompting ourself into a fully running application. In a sense, now we have one intelligence that understands design intent and the same intel in intelligence can write code. So I thought to myself, oh my god, I think we might be able to close this loop. At the speed of inference, we could close this loop. And so I was curious. Um, I'm curious by nature. So I went all in. That's my GitHub before vibe coding happened on the left on on my left on your whatever. Um then after so I think everybody probably gets a sense of what my life was like from April 2025. And if you want to scroll till today it's it's even more so. Um, I got this email from cursor one day that said I was in the top 0.1% of usage of cursor and I thought to myself, I need to spend more time outside. Then there was a bill. Um, but at the time it was the $20 deal and I kind of, you know, monitored, but every now and again I'd pay for a little bit more, get another hit. Um, and this was my life vibe coding from that point in April until today. Um, I'm trying to figure out can I go from design to code? Can I go from code to design? Can I build a tool to go from design to code and code to design a full round trip without any loss of fidelity? That pixel perfect dream that we have. Um, I remember vividly uh one day I was, you know, just hammering away at the keyboard, just vibing my way. I was really feeling the vibe. And, uh, this wall of text was coming by and I was completely ignoring it and code was being written, just watching that come by. And I remember seeing a statement that was an inner HTML statement. And I remember from way back when that inter HTML was a security vulnerability that people can actually inject into in HTML and I stopped it. I said, "Wait a minute, wait a minute." to my LM, "Wait a minute, what did you just do?" And it explained to me what it did and it was very proud of itself. And and I said, "Revert that. Do this instead." Blah blah. And I got into this mode of like, "Oh, maybe I need to steer this thing a little bit better. Maybe I can't just go blindly in. Maybe I need to look at the code now. And I've looked at a lot of code in my life. So I went ahead and went in and looked at the code and I Whoops. I'm sorry. I clicked too ahead and I found I found issues. And so I went a little bit deeper when the industry started to tell me that they had solved the round trip that you could go a true roundtrip workflow. You could roundtrip between code and canvas. I think folks in the room might remember back in February, no slam on anthropic or Figma, there was this demo that showed going from cloud code into Figma. And it was magic. It was incredible. I couldn't believe you could build a Figma artboard from a prompt in Cloud Code. And then I had to go deeper and I had to look deeper in the same way that I looked at vibe coding. Like, is this real? Is the hype real? So I went deeper and then more announcements were made all the way up until last week when Figma config announced that code is now material. Does that mean there is no even handoff that exists anymore? Um so I'm monitoring trying to keep up. Things are happening at warp speed. But they said the roundtrip was solved and I started messing around and realized it wasn't. And so I want to share with all of you a harness that I built. Whoops. Oh, wait a minute. Local host, where are you? Local host, come back to me, local host. Okay. I don't know what I don't know what just happened there. And now I'm afraid to restart this. Um, okay. I think we're I think we're okay. Um, I created this harness. And what this harness is is on. I'm going to say left. I hope everybody is that your left. It is your left. Okay, good. \[laughter\] On your left is code that was generated by AI. This is this is all real what you're seeing here. Generated by AI and on your right is a design. Be it a canvas that that I created in Figma, be it something I created in Sketch. It's not really relevant what the sources are here, but the reality is I'm trying to illustrate a round trip. And so a round trip you know starts with code or starts with design and it has a prompt associated with it. So some some LLM I call off and I say in this instance I want to take this form and I want to build a design system from it. So there there are tools that do this that can extract code and build design systems from graphical canvases. And so I can do that. And it updated the code and created some styles. And it also actually created um a design system that works in runtime here. So this is like a a real app that got built that is also living in Figma. So there's a link up here. I won't go there, but trust me, so we can say stable. If I click that link, it would go to Figma and show me the full-blown design system that was built. And a design system for those that don't know is composed of components and tokens and variables and styles that all are used as a basis for building software from. So code and design together, you know, really work well when there's a design system and there's a code base that understands it. Now move back and forth. You throw something over here and you say, "Okay, I want to build an orange button." And I've added a company field and an orange button. The code is updated. The design is updated. This is awesome. Could I go back? Maybe. Um, but I have a button up here called show drift. So, show drift is rewaver AI working right now. And this is real rewaver code for the first time introduced to the public ever. And if I click show drift, I'll see a list of issues that got generated from both the code and the design at the same time. There are across several different dimensions that you can see here. Design quality, code quality, performance, design tokens, etc. One of the ones of note that I find really important from my perspective is at Microsoft I worked on accessibility and I learned a lot about what it means to build an accessible software system. And I I want to be honest with all of you. I was very frustrated when I first saw LMS come out and they generated code that was inaccessible period out of the box. I thought what models weren't trained on accessibility. Um, and I was reminded 20 years ago when you know engineers needed to be trained on accessibility. So here we are again now training LLMs instead of engineers on accessibility. So found issues. Um, here's an issue where has no Arya live region. So it won't be announced by screen reader. A blind user using this won't get an announcement about this element. So Rewaver found that and Rewaver says it can fix it and Rewaver fixed it. Now the red went away, but there's also a blue issue here as well. Um so Rewaver stacks up issues and you know basically scans scans the code and scans the design and produces u guard rails to a sense but also a way to fix the code and make it better. So I did that across multiple dimensions um you know with the intention of seeing if anybody had solved the drown the the roundtrip problem and it didn't go well. Uh I never got really the full round trip. So I really tried hopefully this slide tells you I tried five different tool setups trying to do code design code roundtrip both directions birectional lots of lossy issues uh you know bindings were lost um design change survived but code didn't I'm not going to say we're not going to get there um but even if we do get there and we're able to do this I wonder if we'll get fully there And maybe we need tools like Reweaver. I shouldn't say maybe, we do need tools like Reweaver to help us understand the drift. So that whole experience for me really highlighted something from my past. Um I had I had built a lot of software development tools, designed and built software development tools and developer tools in their nature are deterministic. You write code, you compile it, you get an SA a it it'll every time you run that code, you'll get the same result. When you put AI in the middle of that or in the front of that or the end of that, you're not going to necessarily get the same outcomes. Now, there are tools that will help you understand, rewaver being one of them, that there's a mismatch. There's drift there and we need to be aware of drift. Drift lurks in the dark. You need to look at the code. You need to find the drift. You need to fix the drift. And you do that with deterministic guardrails around the AI. The AI is still there. So I ran another experiment, 12 iterations on a codebase with complex enough UI to it. And I did one where it was just pure AIE, just LLM all the way. And it degraded a little. It degraded a little bit, but it started at 30% quality, 30% fidelity, 30%, you know, true pixel perfection. And then I put it on top of deterministic guardrails where we found the issues, we fixed the issues. You can't get to a hundred because that 10% is human judgment, human decision-making. So the human is still there in this equation. Um, so what is it today? Uh, today I I would call it we're locked into AI. And that's okay. We'll go there. We'll embrace that. But we're locked into AI for design to code. We're locked into AI for code to design, looping, chat bots, what we call span the chain workflows where you jumping across tools. And there's always token costs to be aware of, of course. So in this world, the agents are in control and the humans in the loop. I'd like to propose something else. Before I do, there are three blind spots we need to be aware of. One is the model itself. It's going to you can ask it questions. It'll give you answers, but it's nondeterministic. It's probabilistic. There will be drift in the moment when you're writing code. Drift will surface, but drift over time is the pain that you'll be experiencing for the next six months because drift over time is the new tech debt and it's going to pile itself gloriously over your codebase. Um, we want to do something about it. So here's where we think it isn't meaning what it could be what it should be fully birectional edit both ways lossless all surfaces preserved so if you go from code to design and design to code nothing's breaking weirdly for you provenence is carried where did this start from what line of code wrote this button I see this button in Figma I want to change it I need to change that code or Somebody needs to change that code. We have to control the drift. It's deterministic reconciliation at its core. So with deterministic guardrails, and I'm happy to talk after if folks are interested in what I mean by that, accept or refuse. So if they know there's a fix, they will fix it. If they don't know there's a fix, they will tell you there's an issue, but you need to fix it. And with Ruby Weaver, there's zero extra token costs. So, we're fully local LLM, but if you want to open up Claude or whatever and connect to us, you can. But at its core, and our core principle is the human is in control always. In control of cost, in control of code, in control of design, because that's what we've been doing for decades. We've been in control. We don't need to lose control. And I'm not saying loop isn't good, but human in control is I think a little more aspirational because at the end of the day, what you need is actually what you get. I call it winnywig. Can I use that winny wig? So what are we building at its core? What we're building are nine dimensions of deterministic guardrails. Inside of this is a lot of stuff, but these are our top level um software quality, software production readiness dimensions. Design consistency being core. Of course, when you have a design system and the code isn't consistent with it and vice versa, we need to fix that. So, there's a lot of design consistency um work that's going into the the foundation. Accessibility is its own dimension. um maybe selfish of me but I think it's core uh AI code generation too or AI code sorry governance AI code generation governance is another really critical piece because the code is just flying through the system and we need to govern that code now we're not going to change the code rewaver actually doesn't write code you write code reweaver will do what you want it to do so if you say apply the fix it'll write the code for you can see the code being written You can say never mind undo. You can ignore it. So at the end of the day, catch what drifts in a closed loop before anything merges. That's the goal. You can try it out with your own code today. Right now, you can go to reweaver AIPplayground and we built kind of a similar harness to what I built there where you can put your AI generated code on the left on the left. You can scan it and get your results for that code. There's also a fun little challenge on that page. If you can get AI to generate code that gives you a score lower than30 PDR, which is production drift ratio, will get you a frontline seat on the beta, but you'll also get yourself showcased at the bottom on the crawl. So, give it a shot. Take a look. Um, meanwhile, I'm looking for people to join our beta. We're going to basically blast out mid July hopefully. Um so would love for you to join if you're interested um to make the product better to sanity check us. Um basically that's it and you can also reach me online or outside happy to talk more. Thank you.