How to hit the target every time. Iterative vs. Agile development.

In this episode of The Agile Software Engineering Deep Dive, Alessandro Guida explores a simple but powerful idea: the shortest path to building the right software is to keep understanding and implementation in sync.

Using a clear visual model, the episode examines why both Waterfall and “just start coding” lead to rework, how Agile attempts to balance the two through iteration, and where it often drifts in practice. It also introduces a more intentional iterative approach that focuses on aligning knowledge and execution throughout the development process.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:29

Welcome to the Agile Software Engineering Deep Dive, the podcast where we unpack the ideas shaping modern software engineering. My name is Alessandro Guida, and I've spent most of my career building and leading software engineering teams across several industries. And today, I want to talk about something that sounds almost trivial, but changes how you think about software development once you see it clearly. How do we actually move from not understanding a problem to delivering a system that solves it? Because in most teams, we tend to separate those two things. We either try to understand everything first, or we start building immediately and hope to adjust later. But both approaches create the same outcome. Rework. In this episode, I want to introduce a simple mental model, two axes, understanding and implementation. And the idea that the shortest path to a working system is not about maximizing either one, but about keeping them aligned. We will look at why waterfall and just start coding both drift away from that path, where agile helps and where it can quietly move us off course, and how a more intentional iterative approach can keep us closer to the target. Because in the end, it is not about how fast we move, it is about whether we are moving in the right direction. Let's dive in.

SPEAKER_02 1:53

Usually when we talk about hitting a target, there's this underlying expectation of, well, clear visibility. You know? Think about archery. Right. You stand on the line, the wind is totally still, and the target is painted in these bright red and white rings, like 50 yards away.

SPEAKER_01 2:11

Yeah. It's a completely static environment.

SPEAKER_02 2:13

Exactly. You pull back the string, you aim, and you release.

SPEAKER_01 2:16

Because you can see exactly what you're aiming at, and you know, it's exact distance before the string ever even slips from your fingers.

SPEAKER_02 2:23

Aaron Powell Then you step into the world of building complex software.

SPEAKER_01 2:27

Oh boy.

SPEAKER_02 2:28

Or honestly, building any massive modern project. Yeah. Suddenly it's like someone has blindfolded you, put the target in the back of a moving truck, driven into a thick fog, and told you to fire.

SPEAKER_01 2:37

That is, I mean, that is the absolute definition of operating in muddy waters.

SPEAKER_02 2:42

Right. You're trying to solve a problem you don't fully understand yet, using a technical solution that doesn't even exist yet.

SPEAKER_01 2:47

And that trauma, you know, of missing that moving target over and over again, that's exactly what drives our industry's relentless obsession with development methodologies.

SPEAKER_02 2:58

Oh, totally.

SPEAKER_01 2:58

We are all just desperately searching for a way to like see through the fog.

SPEAKER_02 3:02

Which is why today's deep dive is just so critical. We are unpacking a, well, a deceptively simple mental model from Alessandro Gita's newsletter.

SPEAKER_01 3:12

Yeah, the issue titled How to Hit the Target Every Time: Iterative versus Agile Development.

SPEAKER_02 3:17

Right. And it's a framework that translates all the chaos of project failure into this really clear visual geometry. It completely changes how you view the mechanics of building, well, almost anything.

SPEAKER_01 3:32

It forces a really profound shift in perspective. Like it cuts through all the jargon of sprint planning and daily stand-ups to expose the actual physics of why projects succeed or fail.

SPEAKER_02 3:42

Before we really get into the weens, though, I do want to take a quick second for a really important reminder for you listening. This deep dive is completely free, but it is an enormous help to us if you take just a second to press like and subscribe to receive all the future issues.

SPEAKER_01 3:56

Yes, please do.

SPEAKER_02 3:57

And also, if you could repost and forward this deep dive and the related article to your friends and colleagues, it's a massive help. And hey, please remember to go read and subscribe to the full original article.

SPEAKER_01 4:08

Highly recommend that.

SPEAKER_02 4:09

Yeah, the original text contains these brilliant visual illustrations and much more in-depth content that you will definitely want to actually see with your own eyes.

SPEAKER_01 4:17

The visuals really lock it all in.

SPEAKER_02 4:19

Okay, let's unpack this. Gita asks us to visualize a standard mathematical graph.

SPEAKER_01 4:25

Just a basic grid.

SPEAKER_02 4:26

Right. So on the horizontal axis, the x-axis, you have your level of understanding of the problem.

SPEAKER_01 4:32

Okay.

SPEAKER_02 4:32

And then on the vertical axis, the y-axis, you have your level of implementation of the solution.

SPEAKER_01 4:37

So if you're sitting right at the origin point, like at the bottom left, 0x, 0y, you know absolutely nothing about the client's problem, and you have built absolutely zero code to solve it.

SPEAKER_02 4:47

Aaron Powell The ultimate goal is sitting way up in the top right corner. Up there, your understanding of the problem is absolute, and you have a fully complete working system that solves it perfectly.

SPEAKER_01 4:59

Now, mathematically, the shortest distance between those two points is a straight diagonal line.

SPEAKER_02 5:04

Obviously.

SPEAKER_01 5:05

But the author emphasizes that this diagonal isn't just, you know, an elegant and geometric concept. It represents a fundamental truth about progress.

SPEAKER_02 5:14

Which is what?

SPEAKER_01 5:14

That true efficiency requires keeping your understanding and your implementation completely in sync at all times. You have to move along that diagonal.

SPEAKER_02 5:23

Aaron Powell Let's uh let's get away from abstract math for a second to really picture this. Think about this like building a house like that. The x-axis, the understanding, is figuring out how the family actually lives. What rooms do they need? Do they cook a lot?

SPEAKER_01 5:37

Right, the blueprints and the lifestyle.

SPEAKER_02 5:39

Exactly. While the y-axis, the implementation, is you actually out there laying the physical bricks.

SPEAKER_01 5:44

And what's fascinating here is that if you deviate from that synchronized diagonal line, the source points out that you generate two very distinct types of organizational pain. Think about laying bricks without knowing the family's needs. If your y-axis of implementation shoots way higher than your x-axis of understanding, you are generator pure waste.

SPEAKER_02 6:06

You just built a massive, expensive kitchen for a family that orders takeout every single night.

SPEAKER_01 6:11

Exactly. And you have no choice but to bring in the sledgehammers, tear it down, and start over. Painful. But now consider the flip side. What happens if you spend all your time on the x-axis asking the family questions, drawing up charts? But you never move up the y-axis to build anything.

SPEAKER_02 6:27

Well, you're living in a complete illusion.

SPEAKER_01 6:29

Precisely. You possess an incredibly detailed, beautiful architectural drawing. You think you know exactly how the house will function. Yeah. But until you actually lay a physical brick and see if the foundation holds the weight, your understanding is just, well, untested theory. It is entirely unvalidated.

SPEAKER_02 6:46

That dynamic is so clarifying. I mean, building ahead of understanding is waste, and understanding ahead of building is an illusion. And looking through that lens, it completely exposes the fatal flaws in how most enterprise teams operate today. Because the two dominant development paradigms out there don't just drift off this line.

SPEAKER_01 7:07

No, they don't.

SPEAKER_02 7:08

They sprint as fast as they can in opposite directions.

SPEAKER_01 7:10

Let's look at the first massive deviation, the traditional waterfall method.

SPEAKER_02 7:16

Ugh, waterfall. We probably don't need to define it too much. Anyone listening to this has likely suffered through it.

SPEAKER_01 7:21

Very true.

SPEAKER_02 7:22

But viewing it through Guida's grid is just fascinating. Waterfall is an absolute obsession with the horizontal x-axis.

SPEAKER_01 7:29

Purely horizontal.

SPEAKER_02 7:30

You're dragging your team along that axis for six months, drafting hundred-page specification documents, flow charts, requirement matrices, all while the y-axis of implementation stays locked firmly at zero.

SPEAKER_01 7:42

And we really have to acknowledge the psychological comfort of that horizontal movement.

SPEAKER_02 7:46

Oh, for sure.

SPEAKER_01 7:46

When enterprise teams are writing those massive specs, their confidence artificially inflates. They look at this towering stack of documentation and they feel a sense of control, like they have conquered the system's complexity.

SPEAKER_02 7:59

Aaron Powell Because paper doesn't push back.

SPEAKER_01 8:01

Exactly.

SPEAKER_02 8:02

A word document never throws a compilation error. A PDF never complains about server latency or like a deprecated API.

SPEAKER_01 8:10

Aaron Powell The deception is total. You reach the far end of that x-axis, and the project managers declare that you have achieved 100% understanding of the problem. Right. But then the deadline looms and you are forced into a massive frantic vertical sprint straight up the y-axis. You hand those pristine documents to the engineers and say, okay, write the code.

SPEAKER_02 8:31

And reality hits the fan immediately.

SPEAKER_01 8:45

Always.

SPEAKER_02 8:46

You discover um the database technology you selected six months ago can't even handle the read-write volume the client actually needs today.

SPEAKER_01 8:54

So that perfect understanding was entirely unvalidated. You're crapped. You have to halt implementation, rewrite the core architecture, discard whatever code you just started writing, and go way back to the drawing board.

SPEAKER_02 9:06

It's a nightmare. But the trauma of that waterfall rework is exactly what drives our industry into the second trap.

SPEAKER_01 9:13

Yes, the complete opposite reaction.

SPEAKER_02 9:16

Developers get burned so badly by overplaning that they develop this allergic reaction to planning altogether. Enter the polar opposite, the basement hacker approach.

SPEAKER_01 9:26

It's a complete inversion of the problem. If waterfall is purely horizontal, the basement hacker is purely vertical. Yeah. They have zero understanding of the real-world business constraints, but they open their terminal and immediately start hammering out code. They shoot straight up the y-axis.

SPEAKER_02 9:42

Because writing code feels incredibly productive.

SPEAKER_01 9:45

It does.

SPEAKER_02 9:46

It triggers that immediate dopamine hit. You write a function, you hit compile, and boom, a login screen appears on your monitor. You feel like a genius.

SPEAKER_01 9:54

But going back to your house analogy, they're pouring concrete at 100 miles an hour while wearing a blindfold. They haven't asked the family what they need or checked the soil quality.

SPEAKER_02 10:03

And the inevitable tax for both of these extremes is exactly identical. Whether you overplan in a boardroom or overbuild in a basement, you end up paying the exact same penalty. Massive soul-crushing rework. You either have to tear up the foundation or rewrite the broken specifications.

SPEAKER_01 10:20

Both methods systematically ignore the necessity of validating knowledge through incremental action.

SPEAKER_02 10:26

So anyone listening who lives and breathes modern software development is probably yelling at their device right now. But wait, this is exactly why Agile exists.

SPEAKER_01 10:35

I can hear them yelling from here.

SPEAKER_02 10:37

Right. Agile was designed specifically to cure this. It promotes small iterations, frequent delivery, tight feedback loops to supposedly keep us right near that diagonal line.

SPEAKER_01 10:48

It is the natural defense of the modern developer. Agile promises that guided trajectory. In fact, the source highlights a concept popularized by John Cleese regarding creativity and true iteration.

SPEAKER_02 10:59

Oh, the Monty Python guy.

SPEAKER_01 11:01

Exactly. The idea is that you aren't meant to walk a mathematically rigid, perfectly straight line. True iteration is building a tiny piece, pausing to observe how the system reacts, adjusting your mental model based on that feedback, and then building the next piece.

SPEAKER_02 11:15

You're constantly course correcting.

SPEAKER_01 11:17

Right, driven entirely by the acquisition of real knowledge.

SPEAKER_02 11:20

But here's where it gets really interesting. Guida argues that in the real world, Agile silently, almost invisibly, drifts away from this knowledge-driven ideal. It falls straight into what we can call the time trap.

SPEAKER_01 11:35

This requires a really hard look at the psychological impact of modern agile ceremonies.

SPEAKER_02 11:40

Okay, unpack that for me.

SPEAKER_01 11:41

Think about the industry's obsession with the sprint burndown chart. Agile frequently morphs from being driven by knowledge to being ruthlessly driven by the calendar. A fixed two-week sprint creates an artificial, relentless pressure to produce a tangible output by next Friday. Period.

SPEAKER_02 12:00

Because the scrum methodology dictates that a box just has to be checked. Velocity metrics must be reported to the stakeholders.

SPEAKER_01 12:07

Regardless of whether the engineering team actually understands the underlying problem yet, product managers apply pressure to keep velocity high, and developers are forced to just build something.

SPEAKER_02 12:17

Anything.

SPEAKER_01 12:18

Right. They are pushed vertically up the y-axis simply because the calendar demands a deliverable.

SPEAKER_02 12:23

Let me play devil's advocate here, though. Sure. One of the primary vehicles of Agile is the user story. You know, as an admin, I want to filter the dashboard so I can find active accounts.

SPEAKER_01 12:34

Classic format.

SPEAKER_02 12:35

Right. Those are incredibly specific, bite-sized pieces of work. Doesn't breaking a massive project down into tiny user stories guarantee that the team understands exactly what they are building before they write the code?

SPEAKER_01 12:48

They guarantee a very specific type of understanding, but it's an incredibly dangerous one if you rely on it exclusively.

SPEAKER_02 12:55

How so?

SPEAKER_01 12:56

There is a brilliant observation in the comments section of the original article that dissects this exact trap. The commenter points out that user stories provide exceptional local clarity, but they systematically destroy global understanding.

SPEAKER_02 13:10

Wait, local clarity versus global understanding. Walk me through the mechanics of that.

SPEAKER_01 13:13

Okay. Imagine you are tasked with building a high-performance jet engine. A user story is the equivalent of handing a machinist a blueprint for a single intake valve and saying, make this valve perfect. The machinist understands that valve completely. They know its dimensions, its material, its tolerance. That is local clarity.

SPEAKER_00 13:33

Right.

SPEAKER_01 13:33

But that machinist has absolutely no idea how that valve interacts with the fuel injection system that another team is building across the building.

SPEAKER_02 13:40

I hear that. But puzzle pieces eventually make a picture. Right? If a scrum master or elite architect is doing their job, shouldn't they be managing that global view and putting the pieces together?

SPEAKER_01 13:52

In theory, yes. In practice, human cognitive bandwidth simply cannot manage a coherent global view when a complex system is fractured into like 500 disjointed backlog items spread across four different sprint teams over six months. The cognitive load is simply too high.

SPEAKER_02 14:11

So things fall through the cracks.

SPEAKER_01 14:13

Huge things. Dependencies surface incredibly late. Team A builds their beautiful intake valve.

SPEAKER_02 14:26

The data structures are totally incompatible.

SPEAKER_01 14:28

Exactly. So the system fractures. Teams think they are being iterative and agile, but because they lack that overarching architectural map, they're really just doing mini waterfalls.

SPEAKER_02 14:38

Oscillating between shortbursts of mini waterfalls and reactive panicky corrections.

SPEAKER_01 14:43

They feel highly productive because Jira tickets are constantly moving to the Dunn column. But beneath the surface, they are accumulating a massive mountain of technical debt and hidden rework.

SPEAKER_02 14:54

That is brutal. It completely reframes the busy work of a sprint. And there's another agile practice, the source calls out, that violently yanks us off that diagonal line, the UI trap.

SPEAKER_01 15:04

Oh, the user interface trap. It is perhaps the most expensive self-inflicted wound teams make in the name of iteration.

SPEAKER_02 15:11

Because Agile Dogma strongly emphasizes delivering something demonstrable to the customer at the end of every single sprint.

SPEAKER_01 15:17

Right. And let's be honest, business stakeholders are rarely impressed by a well-structured JSON payload or a robust database query.

SPEAKER_02 15:25

No, they want to see buttons. They want a dashboard they can click. It feels real to them.

SPEAKER_01 15:29

So the engineering team scrambles to build a UI just to have something to show at the sprint review. But the source issues a massive warning here. The UI is intrinsically the most volatile, fragile component of any system.

SPEAKER_02 15:42

Aaron Powell Why is it so volatile though? Explain the causality there.

SPEAKER_01 15:45

Aaron Powell Think about how data flows through an application. The UI is the absolute top layer. It depends entirely on the layers beneath it. The business logic, the workflows, the database schema.

SPEAKER_02 15:56

Okay, I fall.

SPEAKER_01 15:58

If you realize in Sprint 3 that a core business workflow needs an extra layer of security approval, the underlying data structure fundamentally changes.

SPEAKER_02 16:07

Which means the beautiful front-end form you spent all of Sprint 1 building is now completely useless. Exactly. The data it expects to send no longer matches the back-end reality. You have to rip apart the CSS, the HTML, the state management, just to accommodate a back-end logic change.

SPEAKER_01 16:22

Aaron Powell The causality of change flows upward. Any shift in your understanding of the core problem ripples up and breaks the UI. So if you force developers to build a UI too early, before the underlying logic is validated, you are deliberately building a house on a fault line. You are pushing vertical implementation way past your horizontal understanding.

SPEAKER_02 16:44

So true iterative development, according to the author, means delivering what is appropriate for your current level of understanding. Right. If you are trying to prove out a high-volume transaction system, your first iteration might just be a headless back-end service that writes to a database. There are no buttons, there is no CSS.

SPEAKER_01 17:03

It is a meaningful step forward in validating your understanding of the system's performance. It keeps you right on that diagonal line without incurring the massive technical debt of a premature user interface.

SPEAKER_02 17:19

Okay, so if slicing a project into hundreds of fragmented user stories destroys global understanding, and rushing a UI creates volatile technical debt, how do we actually stay on the line?

SPEAKER_01 17:30

It's the million-dollar question.

SPEAKER_02 17:31

How do we build massive enterprise-scale systems without losing our trajectory?

SPEAKER_01 17:35

As systems scale and complexity, staying close to that diagonal requires structural discipline. The author outlines a progressive separation of concerns. Instead of trying to build vertical slices of everything all at once, you overlap four distinct areas of focus.

SPEAKER_02 17:52

Let's walk through how these connect. The first area is architecture. But to be clear, this isn't retreating back to the massive specification documents of waterfall, right?

SPEAKER_01 18:01

Mm-hmm.

SPEAKER_02 18:02

We aren't defining every single database table up front.

SPEAKER_01 18:05

Far from it. Architectural understanding is purely about establishing the structural skeleton. Okay. You're identifying the major components, the physical boundaries of the system, and the hard constraints like security, compliance, or extreme performance requirements. You are agreeing on the physics of the universe you are building in.

SPEAKER_02 18:23

Going back to the building a house analogy, this is deciding the load-bearing walls and where the plumbing main goes. You aren't picking out the fabric for the dining room chairs yet.

SPEAKER_01 18:31

A crucial distinction. Once that high-level architectural skeleton is validated, then you move into the second area business logic understanding.

SPEAKER_02 18:39

Which acts as a protective shield against that UI trap we just talked about.

SPEAKER_01 18:43

Exactly. Here, the engineering effort is focused exclusively on core behavior. What are the strict business rules? How does the data need to transform? You implement these workflows as executable, headless services.

SPEAKER_02 18:57

So you are proving the plumbing actually carries water under pressure before you start hanging the expensive drywall.

SPEAKER_01 19:04

And because you have completely divorced the business logic from the presentation layer, you can test and validate the pure rules of the system without the distraction or the volatility of UI changes.

SPEAKER_02 19:15

So once we have that rock solid architectural skeleton and the business logic is humming along perfectly in the back end, then we can finally appease the stakeholders.

SPEAKER_01 19:23

Then you enter the third area user experience understanding. Now the UX specialists and front-end engineers can sit down with the users and shape the visual interface.

SPEAKER_02 19:31

Because now the UI is reflecting technical reality, not just guesses. If the back end requires three distinct steps to process a secure order, the front-end engineers know exactly what workflow they need to design for the user.

SPEAKER_01 19:43

The UI becomes a thin, manageable reflection of validated logic. You drastically reduce the risk of throwing away expensive front-end code because the foundational logic beneath it is already locked in and tested.

SPEAKER_02 19:57

It's almost frustratingly logical when you lay it out like that.

SPEAKER_01 20:00

Isn't it?

SPEAKER_02 20:00

It avoids the fragmented mini waterfalls of Agile, and it completely bypasses the massive rework of traditional waterfall. Which brings us to the final area refinement.

SPEAKER_01 20:11

This is where the team smooths out inconsistencies, polishes the user interactions, and optimizes performance across the fully integrated system.

SPEAKER_02 20:18

But the author makes a brilliant distinction here that we really need to highlight. Refinement in this model is not rework.

SPEAKER_01 20:24

No. And that is the ultimate payoff of staying on the diagonal line. When you maintain that strict balance of understanding and implementation, moving deliberately from architecture to logic to experience refinement is just natural finishing. Right. It is sanding the wood and applying a coat of varnish. It is not taking a sledgehammer to a load-bearing wall because someone forgot to check if the plumbing actually fit inside it.

SPEAKER_02 20:46

So what does this all mean? If we step back and look at the whole picture, the core takeaway is a profound shift in how we view progress itself.

SPEAKER_01 20:55

Definitely.

SPEAKER_02 20:56

Whether you are building complex enterprise software, launching a new product line, or organizing a massive event, speed is completely irrelevant if your vector is wrong.

SPEAKER_01 21:05

Velocity without alignment is just arriving at a disaster faster.

SPEAKER_02 21:09

The ultimate goal is to ruthlessly maintain that diagonal balance. The second your building outpaces your knowledge, you are generating waste. And the second your analysis outpaces your real world validation, you are living in a theoretical illusion.

SPEAKER_01 21:25

And as the grid shows us, the further you drift from that line, the more expensive and painful the inevitable course correction becomes.

SPEAKER_02 21:32

Before we wrap up, I need to make a massive plug again for the original source material. We talked a lot about geometry and lines today, but seeing Guida's actual visual illustrations of this X and Y axis and his deep dive into the code level mechanics of separation of concerns is just absolutely essential. Please go read and subscribe to the full article.

SPEAKER_01 21:51

Yeah, the visuals cement the concepts in a way that audio alone just can't quite capture. It is highly recommended.

SPEAKER_02 21:57

Definitely. Also, a quick reminder for everyone listening: while this deep dive is completely free, it is an enormous help to us if you take a quick second to press like on the deep dive.

SPEAKER_01 22:07

Please do.

SPEAKER_02 22:08

Please subscribe so you receive all future issues and repost and forward this deep dive and the related article to your friends and colleagues. It is truly the best way to support the show and keep this free content coming.

SPEAKER_01 22:20

Highly appreciated. And you know, thinking about applying these concepts, it actually raises a really fascinating question for us to leave the listener with.

SPEAKER_02 22:28

Oh, I'm ready. Lay it on me.

SPEAKER_01 22:30

Gita notes at the very end of his piece that walking this straight line isn't a strict methodology, it's a fundamental way of thinking.

SPEAKER_02 22:37

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 22:37

And if this framework perfectly balances understanding and implementation in complex software architecture, we have to consider how this exact same X and Y axis applies to how we design our own lives and careers.

SPEAKER_02 22:50

Whoa, that is a serious pivot.

SPEAKER_01 22:52

Think about it though. How often do we waterfall our life plans?

SPEAKER_02 22:56

Oh man.

SPEAKER_01 22:56

We sit horizontally on the axis, overanalyzing a career change, reading every single self-help book, mapping out elaborate five-year plans, but never taking a single vertical step to actually try the new skill or take an entry-level job. We live in the comfortable illusion of progress.

SPEAKER_02 23:14

Oh man, or the complete opposite. How often do we basement hack our own lives?

SPEAKER_01 23:19

Exactly.

SPEAKER_02 23:19

We jump vertically into a new career, make a massive move to a new city, or sign up for an expensive degree just because the frantic motion feels like progress. We do it without ever moving horizontally to deeply understand what actually brings us fulfillment or what the day-to-day reality of that choice really is.

SPEAKER_01 23:37

And then we end up doing massive rework on our own lives. We have to tear down the career we spent a decade building because we realize far too late it was built on an unclarified, unvalidated assumption about what we actually wanted.

SPEAKER_02 23:48

That is heavy, but undeniably true. You can't just close your eyes, pull back the string, and fire into the fog. You have to lay the tracks as you survey the terrain. Small steps, continuous alignment.

SPEAKER_01 23:59

Keeping understanding and implementation in sync, in code and in life.

SPEAKER_02 24:05

Well, that is all the time we have for today's deep dive. Thank you so much for joining us. Remember to check out the original article, hit those like and subscribe buttons. And until next time, keep exploring, keep questioning, and keep your aim true. Take care, everyone.

SPEAKER_00 24:27

Thank you for listening to the Agile Engineering Deep Dive Podcast. If you found this episode valuable, feel free to share it with someone who might benefit. A colleague, your team, or your network. You can access all episodes by subscribing to the podcast and find their written counterparts in the Agile Software Engineering newsletter on LinkedIn. And if you have thoughts, ideas, or stories from your own engineering journey, I'd love to hear from you. Your input helps shape what we explore next. Thanks again for tuning in. And see you in the next episode.