WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.560 Welcome to the debate. Today we are diving into, 00:00:03.560 --> 00:00:05.860 well, attention that's really been defining the 00:00:05.860 --> 00:00:08.259 quality management space for decades now. It's 00:00:08.259 --> 00:00:11.419 this complex and let's be honest, often difficult 00:00:11.419 --> 00:00:14.500 intersection between professional ethical mandates 00:00:14.500 --> 00:00:18.859 and the harsh realities of commercial viability, 00:00:19.219 --> 00:00:21.739 specifically within third party quality auditing 00:00:21.739 --> 00:00:25.399 and those certification processes. And this isn't 00:00:25.399 --> 00:00:28.000 just some abstract idea for quality pros, right? 00:00:28.140 --> 00:00:31.260 It really gets to the heart of trust. The fundamental 00:00:31.260 --> 00:00:33.759 question we're grappling with is whether the 00:00:33.759 --> 00:00:37.280 credibility, the essential ethical mandate of 00:00:37.280 --> 00:00:40.320 third party auditing is fundamentally compromised, 00:00:40.719 --> 00:00:43.380 maybe even rendered unsustainable by this constant 00:00:43.380 --> 00:00:46.380 commercial pressure to keep clients, to maintain 00:00:46.380 --> 00:00:49.200 that business continuity. Right. And my position 00:00:49.200 --> 00:00:52.700 here is really one of firm belief in the framework 00:00:52.700 --> 00:00:55.859 itself. Now, I absolutely acknowledge that commercial 00:00:55.859 --> 00:00:58.539 pressures are severe. I mean, who wouldn't? But 00:00:58.539 --> 00:01:01.179 the ethical obligations that are explicitly laid 00:01:01.179 --> 00:01:05.200 out in standards like ISO 1911, combined with 00:01:05.200 --> 00:01:07.739 the ultimate pursuit of what I call quality with 00:01:07.739 --> 00:01:10.579 a capital Q, well, those must remain our guiding 00:01:10.579 --> 00:01:13.700 principles. The compromises we see, yes, they're 00:01:13.700 --> 00:01:16.640 serious, no doubt, but I see them as correctable 00:01:16.640 --> 00:01:20.579 deviations from an essential non -negotiable 00:01:20.579 --> 00:01:23.560 standard. See, I come at it from a slightly different 00:01:23.560 --> 00:01:27.040 angle. I think focusing only on correcting deviations 00:01:27.040 --> 00:01:29.659 kind of misses the bigger structural problem. 00:01:30.120 --> 00:01:32.200 The reality of the structure itself, you know, 00:01:32.250 --> 00:01:35.230 The fact that third -party certification is primarily 00:01:35.230 --> 00:01:38.750 a business, one that depends on recurring revenue, 00:01:39.310 --> 00:01:42.370 well, that means professional ethics are, I'd 00:01:42.370 --> 00:01:45.430 argue, routinely sacrificed for the sake of business 00:01:45.430 --> 00:01:48.670 continuity. And in that kind of scenario, true 00:01:48.670 --> 00:01:51.349 impartiality becomes tragically unsustainable. 00:01:51.560 --> 00:01:54.640 The economic incentives just actively work against 00:01:54.640 --> 00:01:57.120 it. My perspective really starts right where 00:01:57.120 --> 00:02:01.040 the standard itself begins. ISO 1911, it explicitly 00:02:01.040 --> 00:02:04.359 requires impartiality. And this isn't just a 00:02:04.359 --> 00:02:06.859 suggestion, right? It's the non -negotiable ethical 00:02:06.859 --> 00:02:09.479 framework. We have to uphold this professional 00:02:09.479 --> 00:02:12.460 standard because our true goal, ultimately, is 00:02:12.460 --> 00:02:14.580 providing genuine quality assurance to the end 00:02:14.580 --> 00:02:17.120 user. When I talk about quality with a capital 00:02:17.120 --> 00:02:20.000 Q, I mean that sort of transcendent commitment 00:02:20.000 --> 00:02:22.939 to rigor, a genuine adherence to the intent of 00:02:22.939 --> 00:02:25.520 the standards, not just, you know, mechanically 00:02:25.520 --> 00:02:28.759 checking boxes for compliance. Failures like 00:02:28.759 --> 00:02:31.919 lead auditors choosing not to issue nonconformities. 00:02:32.340 --> 00:02:35.419 Yes, they're grievous, absolutely. But they represent 00:02:35.419 --> 00:02:38.280 a lapse in upholding the standard, not proof 00:02:38.280 --> 00:02:41.520 that the standard itself is irrelevant. That's 00:02:41.520 --> 00:02:44.949 an interesting point, though. I guess I'd frame 00:02:44.949 --> 00:02:48.050 it differently. I actually believe those failures 00:02:48.050 --> 00:02:50.789 are the proof that the standard is, in practice, 00:02:51.530 --> 00:02:54.949 structurally unenforceable. The documented behavior 00:02:54.949 --> 00:02:58.870 is, frankly, chillingly consistent. Lead auditors 00:02:58.870 --> 00:03:01.569 are choosing, consciously choosing, to issue 00:03:01.569 --> 00:03:04.590 only observations in opportunities for improvement 00:03:04.590 --> 00:03:08.289 instead of minor or major nonconformities. And 00:03:08.289 --> 00:03:11.759 why? They stated explicitly to maintain the client 00:03:11.759 --> 00:03:14.719 and the continuity of the business. This pattern 00:03:14.719 --> 00:03:17.759 for me confirms my court thesis. Certification 00:03:17.759 --> 00:03:20.800 is first and foremost a business where the immediate 00:03:20.800 --> 00:03:23.560 economic incentive keeping that client simply 00:03:23.560 --> 00:03:26.560 overrides the ethical mandate of impartial assessment. 00:03:26.750 --> 00:03:29.750 So, just to clarify, you view this widespread 00:03:29.750 --> 00:03:32.810 behavior not as, say, individual moral weakness 00:03:32.810 --> 00:03:35.909 or isolated incidents, but as a symptom of a 00:03:35.909 --> 00:03:39.330 systemic ethical decay, one driven entirely by 00:03:39.330 --> 00:03:42.509 a destructive market dynamic? Absolutely, yes. 00:03:42.889 --> 00:03:45.409 And I respectfully challenge the premise that 00:03:45.409 --> 00:03:49.969 a written standard like ISO 1911 can realistically 00:03:49.969 --> 00:03:52.789 hold the line against that kind of immediate 00:03:52.789 --> 00:03:55.669 financial pressure. What we're observing are 00:03:55.669 --> 00:03:58.250 the predictable consequences of a simple economic 00:03:58.250 --> 00:04:01.889 reality. Professional rigor often just doesn't 00:04:01.889 --> 00:04:04.930 sell in this high -volume, low -margin certification 00:04:04.930 --> 00:04:08.430 market we've created. It unfortunately reminds 00:04:08.430 --> 00:04:10.870 me of that dark sentiment from the auto industry 00:04:10.870 --> 00:04:14.810 years ago, that safety doesn't sell. When a lead 00:04:14.810 --> 00:04:17.629 auditor's business, maybe their bonus or even 00:04:17.629 --> 00:04:20.850 their job security, depends on keeping a client 00:04:20.850 --> 00:04:23.750 happy next year, the temptation to substitute 00:04:23.750 --> 00:04:26.550 an observation, which is basically free advice 00:04:26.550 --> 00:04:30.069 for a minor nonconformity, which triggers costly 00:04:30.069 --> 00:04:32.649 follow ups and potentially strains the relationship. 00:04:33.209 --> 00:04:35.790 Well, that temptation becomes overwhelming. The 00:04:35.790 --> 00:04:38.430 current structure tragically reflects this focus 00:04:38.430 --> 00:04:41.149 on the immediate economic priority. OK, that 00:04:41.149 --> 00:04:44.889 observation on market behavior is it's sobering. 00:04:45.050 --> 00:04:48.170 But let's dig into the core disagreement about 00:04:48.170 --> 00:04:52.250 causality here. You argue that avoiding non -conformities 00:04:52.250 --> 00:04:55.490 is a predictable, almost inevitable, structural 00:04:55.490 --> 00:04:58.449 outcome of the commercial model. If that's true, 00:04:58.769 --> 00:05:01.329 if the financial dependency of the auditor on 00:05:01.329 --> 00:05:04.310 the audited entity makes the impartiality clause 00:05:04.310 --> 00:05:09.310 of ISO 190011 functionally, well, meaningless, 00:05:09.850 --> 00:05:12.709 how can the certificate itself possibly retain 00:05:12.709 --> 00:05:16.139 any value whatsoever? Well, the value it retains 00:05:16.139 --> 00:05:18.579 today is largely administrative, wouldn't you 00:05:18.579 --> 00:05:21.120 say? It's become a bureaucratic cost of doing 00:05:21.120 --> 00:05:23.959 business, you know, a required stamp you need 00:05:23.959 --> 00:05:26.939 for supply chain entry or market access. But 00:05:26.939 --> 00:05:29.720 its ethical value, its actual assurance of genuine 00:05:29.720 --> 00:05:32.839 rigor, that's what's deeply compromised. The 00:05:32.839 --> 00:05:35.680 issue isn't that ISO 1901 doesn't exist on paper. 00:05:36.160 --> 00:05:38.279 It's that it's structurally unenforceable when 00:05:38.279 --> 00:05:40.680 the auditor is so financially reliant on the 00:05:40.680 --> 00:05:43.100 entity they're auditing. You ask how the standard 00:05:43.100 --> 00:05:45.910 can be overcome? Look, the financial pressure 00:05:45.910 --> 00:05:48.490 to protect that revenue stream is an active, 00:05:48.829 --> 00:05:51.329 immediate force. Whereas the penalty for lacking 00:05:51.329 --> 00:05:53.750 rigor, like losing accreditation, that seems 00:05:53.750 --> 00:05:56.730 distant, slow, maybe even unlikely in some cases. 00:05:57.230 --> 00:05:59.290 How can you possibly expect a simple ethical 00:05:59.290 --> 00:06:01.970 declaration as a standard to overcome that immediate, 00:06:02.250 --> 00:06:04.430 almost existential threat to the certification 00:06:04.430 --> 00:06:07.569 body's bottom line? I see why you characterize 00:06:07.569 --> 00:06:10.290 it that way, focusing on the immediate incentive. 00:06:10.779 --> 00:06:12.959 But I think that immediate financial pressure 00:06:12.959 --> 00:06:15.420 might be obscuring a longer -term commercial 00:06:15.420 --> 00:06:18.860 necessity. The very fact that impartiality is 00:06:18.860 --> 00:06:22.639 explicitly mandated in ISO 19 -011, it means 00:06:22.639 --> 00:06:25.439 the industry itself recognizes it as the core 00:06:25.439 --> 00:06:28.339 non -negotiable principle, right? Furthermore, 00:06:28.680 --> 00:06:31.060 if this kind of compromise were truly routine, 00:06:31.500 --> 00:06:33.800 completely unchecked, wouldn't the certification 00:06:33.800 --> 00:06:36.300 bodies themselves face much more scrutiny from 00:06:36.300 --> 00:06:38.970 the international accreditation bodies? I mean, 00:06:39.069 --> 00:06:42.009 if the system is utterly corrupt, why do major 00:06:42.009 --> 00:06:44.569 certification bodies still exist, and manage 00:06:44.569 --> 00:06:46.529 to maintain their high -level accreditations? 00:06:47.149 --> 00:06:50.129 This suggests to me that while, yes, deviations 00:06:50.129 --> 00:06:53.610 occur, the institutional buffers, those accreditation 00:06:53.610 --> 00:06:56.490 mechanisms, they still enforce some minimum standard. 00:06:56.850 --> 00:06:59.009 And that's likely driven by the industry's own 00:06:59.009 --> 00:07:01.250 desire to maintain at least a veneer of credibility. 00:07:01.569 --> 00:07:04.069 We need to focus on strengthening those buffers. 00:07:04.199 --> 00:07:07.660 not dismissing the standard. Credibility is often 00:07:07.660 --> 00:07:11.040 a lagging indicator, though. And right now, I'd 00:07:11.040 --> 00:07:13.519 argue many bodies are kind of coasting on the 00:07:13.519 --> 00:07:16.459 credibility that was established decades ago. 00:07:17.120 --> 00:07:20.120 We're seeing the consequences today of prioritizing 00:07:20.120 --> 00:07:23.300 that immediate business continuity, and the market 00:07:23.300 --> 00:07:26.680 just hasn't fully registered the diminished value 00:07:26.680 --> 00:07:30.180 of the stamp yet. OK, let's pivot slightly then 00:07:30.180 --> 00:07:32.790 to the operational environment. Specifically, 00:07:33.050 --> 00:07:35.970 the rapid acceleration of remote auditing, which 00:07:35.970 --> 00:07:38.810 has become so common, especially post -pandemic. 00:07:39.329 --> 00:07:42.250 How does this shift impact your assessment of 00:07:42.250 --> 00:07:44.970 credibility? Now, while remote audits clearly 00:07:44.970 --> 00:07:47.569 present verification challenges, you know, you 00:07:47.569 --> 00:07:49.769 can't physically walk the floor, kick the tires, 00:07:49.790 --> 00:07:52.790 so to speak, could the incorporation of advanced 00:07:52.790 --> 00:07:55.870 technological solutions actually increase transparency, 00:07:56.329 --> 00:07:58.449 perhaps offset some of that loss of on -site 00:07:58.449 --> 00:08:01.649 rigor? I'm thinking about things like AI analysis 00:08:01.649 --> 00:08:04.389 of digital evidence chains, maybe time -stamped 00:08:04.389 --> 00:08:07.149 video records, sensor data, things like that. 00:08:07.209 --> 00:08:10.110 I have to say, I'm not really convinced by that 00:08:10.110 --> 00:08:12.670 line of reasoning, mostly because the evidence 00:08:12.670 --> 00:08:15.589 I'm seeing suggests remote audits have actually 00:08:15.589 --> 00:08:18.250 exacerbated the credibility crisis, not solved 00:08:18.250 --> 00:08:20.870 it. I think you're focusing on the potential 00:08:20.870 --> 00:08:23.689 of technology, which is fair, but maybe ignoring 00:08:23.689 --> 00:08:25.829 the reality of human behavior under pressure. 00:08:26.370 --> 00:08:28.470 What we seem to be observing is that remote tools 00:08:28.470 --> 00:08:30.790 can make it easier for clients to gain the system, 00:08:31.329 --> 00:08:33.590 often through quite sophisticated self -reporting. 00:08:33.740 --> 00:08:36.539 They can, apparently quite easily, fill out self 00:08:36.539 --> 00:08:38.500 -audit forms with everything perfect, and then 00:08:38.500 --> 00:08:40.580 maybe just signal some small thing just to not 00:08:40.580 --> 00:08:43.539 seem completely fake. But surely the very act 00:08:43.539 --> 00:08:47.399 of signaling some small thing suggests there's 00:08:47.399 --> 00:08:49.539 still some pressure towards honesty, however 00:08:49.539 --> 00:08:52.320 minimal. It shows they know they can't submit 00:08:52.320 --> 00:08:55.740 a perfect report. Or it signals they understand 00:08:55.740 --> 00:08:59.039 the theatrics of compliance, not the reality 00:08:59.039 --> 00:09:02.159 of quality. It demonstrates, I think, that the 00:09:02.159 --> 00:09:04.659 auditing process has devolved into more of a 00:09:04.659 --> 00:09:07.120 form -filling exercise just designed to look 00:09:07.120 --> 00:09:09.200 adequate for the administrative requirement. 00:09:09.620 --> 00:09:11.620 It's become a box -ticking exercise where the 00:09:11.620 --> 00:09:13.879 boxes are often filled by the client themselves 00:09:13.879 --> 00:09:16.340 and the auditor acts more like a remote rubber 00:09:16.340 --> 00:09:18.720 stamp. The shift to remote models, in my view, 00:09:18.799 --> 00:09:21.120 plays directly into this crisis of credibility 00:09:21.120 --> 00:09:23.419 because it simplifies hiding the operational 00:09:23.419 --> 00:09:25.840 reality that an experienced auditor might instantly 00:09:25.840 --> 00:09:28.460 spot during an in -person immersive visit. But 00:09:28.460 --> 00:09:31.320 technology could offer an alternative enforcement 00:09:31.320 --> 00:09:34.580 mechanism, couldn't it? Precisely because human 00:09:34.580 --> 00:09:37.519 assessors are so susceptible to bias and business 00:09:37.519 --> 00:09:41.840 pressure. Why couldn't a standardized, technologically 00:09:41.840 --> 00:09:44.700 enforced chain of digital evidence, something 00:09:44.700 --> 00:09:48.100 immutable, time -stamped, provide a more reliable 00:09:48.100 --> 00:09:50.639 check against fabricated claims than relying 00:09:50.639 --> 00:09:53.379 solely on the subjective judgment of a financially 00:09:53.379 --> 00:09:56.610 constrained lead auditor? Technology, if implemented 00:09:56.610 --> 00:09:59.190 properly, could potentially mandate transparency, 00:09:59.610 --> 00:10:01.429 reducing the opportunity for both the client 00:10:01.429 --> 00:10:03.789 and the auditor to compromise. Well, that assumes 00:10:03.789 --> 00:10:07.090 perfect, ubiquitous implementation and, frankly, 00:10:07.649 --> 00:10:10.250 an infinite budget for verification technology, 00:10:10.389 --> 00:10:13.259 doesn't it? In reality, remote auditing often 00:10:13.259 --> 00:10:16.860 seems to feed into audit fatigue. Clients start 00:10:16.860 --> 00:10:19.960 treating it as just another burdensome checkbox 00:10:19.960 --> 00:10:23.039 activity. They focus their effort on making the 00:10:23.039 --> 00:10:26.220 digital documentation look immaculate even if 00:10:26.220 --> 00:10:30.379 the shop floor reality is chaotic. The current 00:10:30.379 --> 00:10:33.679 technological implementation, I fear, often reinforces 00:10:33.679 --> 00:10:36.990 the superficiality. Let's face it, it's probably 00:10:36.990 --> 00:10:40.169 easier to fake a perfect data set remotely than 00:10:40.169 --> 00:10:42.929 it is to convincingly stage an entire factory 00:10:42.929 --> 00:10:45.409 floor for an unannounced physical inspection. 00:10:45.929 --> 00:10:49.169 Okay, so if we accept, for the sake of argument, 00:10:49.490 --> 00:10:51.769 the grim reality you're describing, that the 00:10:51.769 --> 00:10:54.789 market demands certification primarily as a transactional 00:10:54.789 --> 00:10:57.549 cost, and that auditors are indeed prioritizing 00:10:57.549 --> 00:11:00.509 continuity over rigor, then we face your final 00:11:00.509 --> 00:11:03.490 challenge. How can this passionate call for quality 00:11:03.490 --> 00:11:05.330 to return to the first place, you know, with 00:11:05.330 --> 00:11:08.289 that capital Q, how can that possibly be achieved 00:11:08.289 --> 00:11:11.649 without completely dismantling the existing commercialized 00:11:11.649 --> 00:11:14.129 business model? That really is the crux of the 00:11:14.129 --> 00:11:16.529 matter, isn't it? And I have to respectfully 00:11:16.529 --> 00:11:19.129 challenge the feasibility of simple self -correction 00:11:19.129 --> 00:11:21.889 here. You can't just tell a certification body, 00:11:22.090 --> 00:11:24.429 whether it's publicly traded or privately owned, 00:11:24.750 --> 00:11:27.289 to sacrifice immediate measurable revenue for 00:11:27.289 --> 00:11:29.990 some abstract concept of long -term credibility 00:11:29.990 --> 00:11:32.789 that, as we've discussed, they might be demonstrably 00:11:32.789 --> 00:11:35.370 compromising daily. Where is the evidence that 00:11:35.370 --> 00:11:38.149 the market is currently punishing poor certification 00:11:38.149 --> 00:11:40.470 at a pace that actually outweighs the immediate 00:11:40.470 --> 00:11:43.529 benefit of client retention? If the serious consequences 00:11:43.529 --> 00:11:45.809 for fraud or negligence are maybe a decade away, 00:11:46.049 --> 00:11:48.509 but the rewards for compromise are in this quarter's 00:11:48.509 --> 00:11:51.090 profit report, Well, the decision is pretty obvious 00:11:51.090 --> 00:11:54.049 for any rational business. That is a harsh assessment, 00:11:54.409 --> 00:11:57.070 I grant you, but I would frame the long -term 00:11:57.070 --> 00:12:00.090 view differently. I'd argue that ultimately, 00:12:00.549 --> 00:12:03.230 fundamentally, we are all clients seeking genuine 00:12:03.230 --> 00:12:06.330 quality, whether we're individual consumers or 00:12:06.330 --> 00:12:09.429 large industrial buyers. The market eventually 00:12:09.429 --> 00:12:11.970 does punish poor quality, especially when it's 00:12:11.970 --> 00:12:14.700 masked by meaningless certification. Perhaps 00:12:14.700 --> 00:12:17.919 slowly, I agree, but eventually, and sometimes 00:12:17.919 --> 00:12:21.279 violently, through failures and recalls. Therefore, 00:12:21.480 --> 00:12:24.340 the long -term sustainability of the entire certification 00:12:24.340 --> 00:12:26.919 industry actually relies on its perceived rigor. 00:12:27.519 --> 00:12:30.059 If certification comes to mean nothing, then 00:12:30.059 --> 00:12:32.659 eventually, no one will pay for it, regardless 00:12:32.659 --> 00:12:34.440 of whether it's an administrative requirement 00:12:34.440 --> 00:12:38.179 or not. So, making the ethical choice, upholding 00:12:38.179 --> 00:12:41.480 rigorous assessment is, in the end, the only 00:12:41.480 --> 00:12:43.960 truly viable business model. because the core 00:12:43.960 --> 00:12:47.100 product being sold is trust. If that trust erodes 00:12:47.100 --> 00:12:50.039 completely, the whole industry collapses. That's 00:12:50.039 --> 00:12:52.700 a hopeful and perhaps philosophically necessary 00:12:52.700 --> 00:12:55.659 grounding. But, you know, hope doesn't pay the 00:12:55.659 --> 00:12:58.440 lead auditor's salary this quarter. And it doesn't 00:12:58.440 --> 00:13:00.620 guarantee the survival of the certification body 00:13:00.620 --> 00:13:02.559 next year against competitors who are willing 00:13:02.559 --> 00:13:05.720 to compromise. The evidence right now seems to 00:13:05.720 --> 00:13:08.320 show that compromise is favored precisely because 00:13:08.320 --> 00:13:11.000 the consequences feel distant while the immediate 00:13:11.000 --> 00:13:14.179 reward, client retention, is tangible and often 00:13:14.179 --> 00:13:17.000 seen as necessary for survival. That analogy 00:13:17.000 --> 00:13:19.500 that professional ethics don't sell is tragically 00:13:19.500 --> 00:13:21.559 proving quite accurate in the short to medium 00:13:21.559 --> 00:13:24.220 term where most businesses have to operate. Well, 00:13:24.480 --> 00:13:27.399 I still stand by the necessity of adhering to 00:13:27.399 --> 00:13:31.159 these robust ethical frameworks like 1901 -111 00:13:31.159 --> 00:13:33.799 and recognizing the ultimate public interest 00:13:33.799 --> 00:13:37.710 in true quality. Temporary commercial compromises, 00:13:37.990 --> 00:13:41.009 however tempting, simply cannot justify long 00:13:41.009 --> 00:13:43.570 -term ethical erosion, especially when the very 00:13:43.570 --> 00:13:45.669 purpose of the audit is supposed to be public 00:13:45.669 --> 00:13:48.350 assurance. While acknowledging the commercial 00:13:48.350 --> 00:13:51.429 pressures are severe, the pursuit of quality 00:13:51.429 --> 00:13:54.710 with a capital Q, that deep commitment to the 00:13:54.710 --> 00:13:57.450 intent of the standard, it has to remain the 00:13:57.450 --> 00:14:00.190 goal that validates the entire audit pressiness. 00:14:00.460 --> 00:14:03.519 We must find ways to actively incentivize rigor 00:14:03.519 --> 00:14:06.259 to preempt the complete erosion of trust you're 00:14:06.259 --> 00:14:08.980 warning about. And I would reiterate that the 00:14:08.980 --> 00:14:11.659 documented evidence we've discussed, auditors 00:14:11.659 --> 00:14:14.360 consciously sacrificing non -conformities for 00:14:14.360 --> 00:14:16.919 business continuity, a situation potentially 00:14:16.919 --> 00:14:19.740 worsened by superficial remote self -audits, 00:14:20.320 --> 00:14:23.000 strongly suggests the ethical system has already 00:14:23.000 --> 00:14:25.740 been profoundly subjugated by commercial necessity. 00:14:26.090 --> 00:14:29.370 This deep tension between the reality that the 00:14:29.370 --> 00:14:31.789 certification business thrives on continuity 00:14:31.789 --> 00:14:35.629 and the idealized role of third -party impartiality, 00:14:35.830 --> 00:14:37.750 well, that seems to be the defining characteristic 00:14:37.750 --> 00:14:40.149 of the current landscape. And until we address 00:14:40.149 --> 00:14:42.470 the fundamental business driver that actively 00:14:42.470 --> 00:14:45.629 incentivizes compromise, I suspect true rigor 00:14:45.629 --> 00:14:48.409 will remain more of an elusive theoretical concept 00:14:48.409 --> 00:14:51.230 than a consistent operational requirement. This 00:14:51.230 --> 00:14:54.429 is certainly food for thought. for every professional 00:14:54.429 --> 00:14:57.149 navigating the certification world today, where 00:14:57.149 --> 00:15:00.070 that balance between profitability and integrity 00:15:00.070 --> 00:15:04.129 is well, constantly being tested. Thank you for 00:15:04.129 --> 00:15:06.950 this rigorous exchange on the structural pressures 00:15:06.950 --> 00:15:09.909 facing our field. My pleasure. It's a critical 00:15:09.909 --> 00:15:10.809 discussion to have.