Maybe let's start by talking a bit about the business and then turn and talk about how the tech stack was built, was architected to solve the business's problems. Do you think that's the best way to do it? Or maybe we should go through the tech stack and then that'll automatically get to the business. What do you think is the best approach?

And I should mention, you know, the goal is to get to a point where for certain types of risks, you can do straight through processing. Meaning the submission comes in, the system automatically underwrites it, quotes it, and issues the policy without any human intervention. That's the holy grail. We were working towards that for certain simple risks. But for the more complex risks, you still need the human underwriter. And I think that's still the case today. You know, AI and machine learning can help, but you still need that human expertise, especially in the excess and surplus lines market where the risks are more unusual and complex.

And then in terms of the competitive landscape, you mentioned Markel, James River. Were there other competitors that you were keeping an eye on? And how did Kinsale's technology stack up against theirs?

So in the E&S space, the big players are Markel, James River, RLI, Argo, Great American. There's a bunch of them. And I think most of them were using similar technology. They were using policy administration systems like Guidewire or Duck Creek or CGI Edge. But I don't think any of them were as aggressive as Kinsale in building their own custom applications on top. I think a lot of them were more reliant on the out-of-the-box functionality of the vendor products. And that meant they were slower to innovate. They couldn't move as quickly as Kinsale could.