Great question, Matthew. The - as you noted in your question, this is not a binary yes or no answer. Trying to simplify this. First, there is the safety component, all right? And now that we've had a lot of experience with our device and with the safety that we've seen when we did the unblinding in 2019 for the symptomatic endpoint, we feel very comfortable right now with the safety of the device in the trial. And of course, there are guardrails within the trial design itself that have not been triggered. So hopefully, all of this is looking good on the safety perspective. Now on one end of the spectrum, we could meet the primary endpoint, and that's our goal, right? But a trial being a trial, we don't know where that would be until we outline the data, and we are still blinded at this stage. But the best case scenario for us is we meet the primary endpoint as is designed. The primary endpoint is designed as a number - total number of events, and we're looking at the biennial - negative biennial difference between the two arms. So without going into too much detail is the difference between the total number of events between the treatment arm, the patients who received the Barostim versus the control arm, patients who have not received a Barostim. And an event is either one cardiovascular mortality or the patient receiving a left ventricular assist device, LVAD or receiving a heart transplant or having received the heartier hospitalization. Now if we meet this endpoint, that's the best case scenario. But right short of this, there is a plethora of other outcomes that we will be looking at in terms of additional endpoints and additional analysis. Those are not primary endpoint of the trial. But those are very important as we analyze the totality of the evidence. So let me give a few examples in here so you understand what we're talking about. For example, I mentioned earlier, heart failure hospitalization. It's a simple word. However, in the statistical analysis plan, it's described in two pages. And based on a discussion and recommendation from FDA after they've seen results from other trials, particularly guided HF, they suggest that we add an ancillary endpoints to look at the likely heart failure hospitalization. That's a broader definition just to account here for the impact of COVID, right? So there is a scenario where we might not meet the primary endpoint, but we meet the likely heart failure hospitalization. What does this mean? That's where having us looking at the totality of the evidence and having the FDA look at the totality of the evidence, we'll make the case for all of this. There are other prespecified analysis that we look - that we will be looking at that are embedded into the statistical analysis plan. For example, the win ratio analysis, the data live and out of the hospital analysis, the severity of hospitalization analysis, health economic analysis, long-term symptoms analysis and so forth. And all of those will constitute the evidence. And that's why this is not - unfortunately, this is not going to be a simple yes or no answer, and this is not a binary event when we unblind the data. And I understand here the consternation of some investors wanting to believe that's a simple binary rent where you can play your bets, red or black, and then see where the ball will fall. That's not the case in this situation. And at the end of the day, if there is an incremental indication of use in the labeling, it will be correspondent to the level of evidence that FDA would have seen in our data based on our recommendation, but also what they have seen, and they would have accepted. Now I've also heard some investors telling me that adoption will go down. If we do not meet the primary end point, I disagree with this assumption. The current wave of adoption we have right now is based on the claims and the indication for use that has been allowed by FDA, which is the improvement of symptoms in patients suffering from heart failure period. It could go up if we show additional benefits. It's an upside. And I would say the same about reimbursement. The reimbursement and the payment levels that we are receiving today are based on the product as approved by FDA period. So I don't see here much upside. I see it more of a - I'm sorry, much downside. I see it more of an upside if the data is positive when we unblind the data. Now when is the exact data unblinding, we're still calling now the first half of next year. There's still - and you might ask why is that since we have accrued the 320 events. It's simple. An event that has happened that has not completed, we have to keep tracking the patients until the events complete for example, in the unfortunate situation where a patient is admitted in the hospital for heart filler hospitalization. And a month later, they pass away from it or they received an LVAD. That's still one event. And now this event becomes an LVAD event, or is that not a heart failure hospitalization. So we have to wait until the events complete, then we have to send the monitors to monitor all the source data and blast them. And then we unblind - the data, then we analyze it, and then we submit the evidence to FDA. That is the process I hope I answered your question, Matthew.