Category Archives: Modern vs. Traditional

Word – Styles and Numbering Are Two Different Things

When you contact Document Support for an issue with numbering in Word, do they talk about “styles”? Does it seem that they might be confusing things? If so, your suspicions are correct.

Quick question: What is a “style” in Word?

If you were to ask typical legal Word users, you’d probably get a lot of different answers. Some might vaguely indicate formatting; some might say something about automatic numbers. More knowledgeable users would say that styles allow you to do multiple things at once.

A style in Word is simply a set—a set of options that apply to a particular element. For example, a paragraph style is a set of options that apply to paragraphs.1 Paragraphs can be formatted using several options, such as indentation, line spacing, space before and after, a default font, etc. With a style, you group a set of values for these options together, give it a name, and then you can apply those options to paragraphs all at once.

1 Word also has styles for characters, tables, lists, etc. Styles aren’t just for paragraphs.

Now, of course, paragraphs can be numbered. So…

Question 2: Is numbering part of a paragraph style?

The answer is No. This may be a surprise to a lot of Word users. The fact is, you can apply numbering by using paragraph styles, but the numbering is not part of the style. You can link a numbered list and a paragraph style (so that you get the number by applying the style), but list formatting and paragraph formatting are two different things in Word.

As with many topics, it helps to have a programming perspective. In the Word programming object model, there are List objects and related objects that deal with numbering. Paragraph and ParagraphFormat objects deal with paragraph formatting.

From a user perspective, numbering is controlled through the various numbering dialogs, not the paragraph dialog.

Why is this important?

  1. Because numbering can be done in ways other than through paragraph styles, and it’s essential to know how to work with numbering in general, rather than through the limited functionality provided by linking numbering to paragraph styles.
  2. Because, if you’re a support person, you want know what you’re talking about. If you say “styles” (sets) when you mean “numbering” (numbering), you’re not making sense.

A lot of traditional document support users are trained to apply numbering only through linked paragraph styles. This limited training leads to a lot of ineffective help desk support and wasted document support time. A modern document support professional needs to understand Word numbering at a higher level. For instance:

  • to fix problems quickly, without resorting to wholesale reformatting
  • to handle documents with unfamiliar numbering (e.g., documents from other firms)
  • to handle documents with complex or multiple outlines
  • to create customized numbered lists

All these challenges are easily within the grasp of a document services professional with a modern skill set.

Kenneth Hester is a Microsoft Office Specialist Master (2013, 2010, 2007, 2003) and a Microsoft Certified Application Developer.

Numbering in Word – Think About Document Structure

In Part 1, I outlined a few of the challenges with automatic numbering in Word that trip up traditional document support users. These examples included:

  • Over-reliance on and conflation with paragraph styles
  • Handling multiple, independent lists
  • Handling separate outlines in exhibits or schedules

I’d like to step back now and observe the more general problem that underlies all of these failures. The problem is not thinking about the document structure. People are so focused on getting a number that looks right, they’re not seeing the big picture, which is the document itself, not the numbering.

Word supports numbering in many ways, with many options. The people who developed Word weren’t trying to overwhelm or confuse future users, they were trying to support the many ways documents are structured.

Agreement numbering

Let’s take an example – an agreement. Typically, an agreement is numbered in an outline form, such as:


1.1 Representations of the Seller. The Seller represents that:

(a) blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

(b) blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Typically, legal documents like this will use Word’s heading styles (which are paragraph styles1) to apply the outline numbering. “Article I” is Heading 1, “1.1” is Heading 2, “(a)” is Heading 3, etc.

1 Heading styles are actually linked styles, not just paragraph styles, but they must be used as paragraph styles to get numbers.

That’s pretty standard and simple. So, anybody see a problem with it?

Well, the (a) and (b) paragraphs aren’t headings, are they? We’re calling them “Heading 3″? And only part of the 1.1 paragraph is a heading.

So, even at this elementary level, we’re already ignoring document structure – calling the paragraphs something they’re not – in the quest to get a number in front of them.

Well, Ken, are you suggesting that the profession abandon using heading styles for agreements?

No, it’s too ingrained and convenient. It’s a convention. But I’m saying you should think about what you’re doing in terms of document structure. Users have been trained to work with these imperfections, and have done it for so long, that they don’t think about it. And that’s what leads to problems.

Let’s say further down this agreement there’s something like this:

7.2 Something. Seller will do something under these conditions:

a) something;
b) something;
c) something.

Except that if

1) something;
2) something;
3) something,

Uh oh! The heading styles don’t use “a)” or “1)” formats at that level! What to do? A lot of users are so knee-jerked into heading styles, they’ll modify the heading outline to make some of the heading style levels use these formats with this indent level. And, to avoid messing up the work they’ve done previously in the document, which probably uses several heading levels, they’ll assign it to a lower, so far unused level, like 7 or 8. And they end up with an outline that looks like this:

Is that ridiculous? Yes, that is ridiculous. For one thing, that is saying that those items are at the 7th and 8th level of the outline, which, clearly, they’re not. And if you happen to get to the actual level 7 in your main outline, then you’ve got a conflict. Not to mention that skipping levels (from 2 to 7) flies in the face of the concept of outlining.

The better way to approach this problem is to think about the document structure. The “a), b) c), except 1), 2) 3)” part doesn’t fit with the “ARTICLE I, 1.1, (a), (i)” numbering, and it isn’t serving the same purpose as those main paragraphs. It’s just a list of things within a main section and it happens to be numbered. It’s not part of the main (heading styles) outline, so don’t try to shoehorn it into that outline.

Word allows you to have any number of numbered lists in a document. The main heading outline is only one list. If this particular kind of list is infrequently used in the document, you can just use the numbering buttons to apply the numbering. This creates a standalone list.2 Or, if it recurs, you can create a list style (which I discussed in Part 1).

2 There are some technical issues with using the numbering buttons, which I will address in a future post.

The “a), b) c), except 1), 2) 3)” idiom is fairly common, and users complain that it’s “inconsistent numbering,” which gives them a hard time. Well, it’s not inconsistent numbering. It’s separate numbered lists (separate from the main document outline). Separate lists give users a hard time, if they don’t think about document structure enough to recognize a separate list.

Offering memoranda

I return to the example from Part 1 of the Offering Memorandum. The Description of [Securities] sections in these documents feature lots of independent lists. (I’ll call it description of notes or DoN.) For example:


This covenant will not prohibit the Incurrence of…

(1) Indebtedness Incurred by…

(2) the incurrence of intercompany…

(a) if the Issuer is the lender…

(b) if the Issuer or a Guarantor is…

For purposes of determining…

(1) in the event…

(2) all Indebtedness…

The first “(1), (2)” list is separate from the second one. If you’re not thinking about document structure, you might not recognize or care that they’re separate lists. If you’re only thinking about the numbering, and are (as is typical) over-relying on paragraph styles for numbering, you end up groping for unused heading styles, or “List Number” type paragraph styles, and/or restarting the numbering over and over. Plus, if the lists vary in numbering format, you might run out of styles.

Or you may try to use something like “definition” styles. In a typical definition style numbering scheme, the first level of the numbering outline is actually not numbered. The purpose of this is to support the typical list of definitions, where the definition paragraphs are not numbered, but they may be followed by “(a), (b), (c)” type lists. The reason the non-numbered paragraphs are included in the numbering outline is to use the option to “restart” the numbering of Level 2 paragraphs after each Level 1 paragraph.

It looks like this:

This is a useful, though somewhat problematic, solution for definitions sections. One problem with it is that it makes navigating the paragraphs with the keyboard more difficult (because Word treats each definition paragraph as numbered, even though there’s no number—as you navigate from paragraph to paragraph with the control and arrow keys, you get an unwanted extra stop on each definition paragraph).

Using this kind of numbering for a description of notes section can work, but if you actually use the styles called “Definition,” you’re calling things that aren’t definitions “definitions.” Again, ignoring the document structure.

A better idea may be to create an outline similar to definitions outlines, but use style names more semantically appropriate for a description of notes. But it’s not quite the same as a definitions section because the paragraphs in a DoN don’t serve as unique a purpose as definition paragraphs. They’re really just body text, some of which happen to set off lists. So you’ll have paragraphs that are serving the same purpose called different styles. You’re inventing a style, or class, of paragraph that is defined only by the fact that it sets off a list.

Moreover, the many DoN lists are often inconsistently formatted, and may differ from the definition numbering.

My suggestion for DoNs, as discussed in Part 1, is to use list styles, not paragraph styles. List styles are only concerned with numbering, so you won’t be changing the paragraph styles to something that clashes with the document structure.


A schedule or exhibit is clearly separate from the main document in terms of structure. So, again, you don’t want to use a list from the main document. It’s a separate outline. Use a separate outline in Word.


Numbering, really, is not structure. It’s just enumerating things. The things are part of a logical structure, and the way they’re numbered should follow that structure.

If it’s the main document outline, use the main outline numbering. A separate outline, a different numbered outline. A one-off list? Simple direct numbering. Numerous similar independent lists? Separate lists using a list style.

Kenneth Hester is a Microsoft Office Specialist Master (2013, 2010, 2007, 2003) and a Microsoft Certified Application Developer.

The Two Levels of Document Support

I have over 15 years’ experience in legal document support. Starting in the ’90s, when paper, faxes and taped dictation were normal, to now, where practically everything is done via email.

Over that period, I have witnessed a gradual change in the way attorneys communicate with document support staff. In the past, they were more likely to treat the staff as clerical underlings. Now, attorneys are more likely to need technical help, and they approach the staff more as knowledge workers.

There’s a big difference between asking someone to type some edits in a document and asking someone to solve a complex software issue. Attorneys recognize this. They need professionals, not grunts, for the complex work.

Of course, there is still plenty of grunt work (scan cleanups, discovery responses, work for attorneys who don’t do their own edits, etc.)… What should document support departments do? Have the same people do both—grunting and expert work? Doesn’t seem sensible, does it? However, firms are doing just that. Just throwing it all together under “Document Support.”

I think it’s fair to draw a simple, broad distinction between two levels of legal document support. Level 1 is traditional support—basically, simple editing and document creation. Level 2 is anything requiring knowledge or skill beyond what the average attorney has (keeping in mind that many attorneys have great computer skills). I suggest calling Level 1 something like “Traditional” or “Basic,” and Level 2 “Technical” document support.

Examples of what Level 2 people do: see my earlier post, Examples of Complex Problems, Real Solutions – Part 1.

Having Level 1 people try to do Level 2 work is a joke. Having Level 2s do Level 1 work is a waste.

Requirements for a Level 2 specialist should be rigorous. People with tech credentials should be involved with testing and hiring. In addition to tech skills, you need troubleshooters—educated people, critical thinkers.

Arguably, Level 2s shouldn’t even be part of the document services department, but rather, part of Tech Support or Practice Support, etc. Either way, the firm should recognize the professionalism of people who can do the advanced work.

For many firms, outsourcing will be a sensible way to handle Level 1 work. But a smart firm will want to find and hang onto good Level 2 people.

Programming Is a Necessary Skill

The programs we use every day to create and edit documents, spreadsheets and presentations are very powerful. Word, Excel and PowerPoint all feature a long list of features and a user interface that makes it easy to access those features.

However, the tasks faced by a professional document services group are often so tedious and repetitive that even with the great user interfaces, the users face a daunting amount of work.

The good news is that the MS Office programs also feature a programming interface. Easily accessible through the Developer tab is the Visual Basic development environment (the VBE). As programming languages go, Visual Basic is pretty easy to learn and use.

Microsoft also offers programmers access to practically all of the features of the programs. For instance, you can create a new document, put a bunch of text in it, format it and save and close it, all from executing some code in the VBE.

Also, using code, you can communicate between documents and applications. For example, get data from an Excel spreadsheet or Access database and insert it into a Word document.

In my experience, using the programming features of Office has been not only convenient, it’s been absolutely necessary. Just look at the example video with the financial table. Imagine doing all of that work manually on a document with many tables. The time savings from automating the work with code is mind-boggling. And the tedium of doing it manually is soul-crushing.

And yet, firms who follow the traditional model of document support don’t look for programmers to do document support. Their traditional users spend unnecessary hours doing things manually. In the modern model, programming is a necessary skill that firms should require in document support professionals.

You may argue that a firm’s technical staff (separate from document support) can supply the macros a department needs. Sure, developers can supply some custom code that’s very helpful, but walk around and look at how much repetitive work the users are still doing. It’s because every document is different. Generic code from the developers can only go so far. A user needs to be able to code on the fly.

Users also need to recognize when a task is a programming task versus a manual labor task. If it’s repetitive, if it involves a lot of data, or if it just seems tricky, it’s likely a programming task.

A couple of recent examples from my firm:

  • An attorney had a spreadsheet with a lot of names and email addresses that needed to be normalized. He supplied a list of the names and their corresponding email addresses in a separate spreadsheet. Our non-programmer intake specialist assigned the job to a non-programmer document specialist, who proceeded to apply a copy-paste approach that would have taken many hours. Luckily, one of our programmers came in and wrote some code that finished the job in less than an hour.
  • An attorney had a large PDF resulting from a mail merge and wanted it split into hundreds of separate PDFs. One of our staffers spent a whole day doing it manually, before our programmer discovered it. The programmer wrote some JavaScript in Acrobat that did the job in minutes.
  • An attorney had a 1,000 page document with a table for each deal in a due diligence review, and needed certain irrelevant rows removed from each table. … Same story.

Other common examples:

  • Creating or fixing list numbering
  • Complex find-and-edit procedures
  • Matching rows from one spreadsheet to another
  • Making file indexes
  • Complex merge procedures

If you think that programming is too rare or expensive a skill to find, take a look at a couple of recent Wall Street Journal articles:

Who Needs to Learn How to Code (March 12, 2014) discusses much-in-demand programming courses being taken by corporate managers, job seekers and even many grade school children.

Computer Programming Is a Trade; Let’s Act Like It (August 3, 2014) makes the argument that programming has become a trade, in which a person with basic proficiency can be valuable, even if they lack a computer science degree.

As technology continues its march, people are more accustomed to computers and what they can do. They expect fast results. Even nontechnical people can have a good idea when something ought to be accomplished efficiently using a computer. Lawyers, certainly, are sharp enough to understand whether something can be programmed.

And as coding becomes more and more mainstream, people will continue to become more savvy about it, and expect that skill from staff.

Firms need to keep up with expectations by hiring high-skill people. Document support staffers who can code will make your lawyers happy and provide the return on investment you want from professional staff.

Numbering in Word – Part 1

As a legal document user, you’ve probably run into more than a few issues with automatic numbering. Plus, if you’ve tried to get a traditional staff support person to fix those issues, you have probably been disappointed.

This post examines a few common situations where the modern support model beats the traditional model in the context of Word numbering.

The usual problem: multiple lists

Typical legal documents with numbering are agreements and pleadings. These documents often have a single numbering outline (a single “list,” in Word) that covers the entire document. E.g., an agreement’s outline might look like “Article 1 / 1.1 / (a) / (i)” etc.

Users are generally trained to apply this kind of numbering through the use of paragraph styles that are linked to an outline numbered list. So, for instance, applying the Heading 1 style would give you the “Article 1″ numbering, Heading 2, the “1.1,” etc. It works because the firm’s template links the styles to the outline.

Note that almost all users use the term “styles” to mean paragraph styles. There are other types of styles; later in this post, I will discuss “list styles,” which are a good solution that most users are unaware of.

In Word, a “style” is a set of formatting attributes. You can apply the formatting attributes individually, or in groups through styles. That’s all that a Word “style” is—a set.

Although you get numbering through applying paragraph styles in this manner, paragraph styles and numbering are separate things. Numbering is not an attribute of a paragraph in Word’s programming model. A “paragraph” is one thing; a “list” is another. The reason you get the numbering by applying the style is that you can create a connection between the two through the numbering dialog. In programming-speak, you’re assigning the style as the “LinkedStyle” property for a level in a list template. The firm’s template creators set up the templates to do this.

The problem is, many traditional users conflate paragraph styles and numbering (often referring to them interchangeably and thinking that, for instance, the “1.1” is part of the definition of the Heading 2 style). The user is hard-pressed to use numbering outside of this limited scenario. In fact, it is not necessary at all to use paragraph styles to get numbering. In many situations, it is counterproductive.

The most common of these situations is having multiple numbered lists in a document.

Offering memoranda

Numbering in an offering memorandum or prospectus—especially the Description of Notes (or other securities) section—challenges the paragraph styles-dependent user. Why? Because this section features many independent numbered lists. It will often look like:


This covenant will not prohibit the Incurrence of…

(1) Indebtedness Incurred by…

(2) the incurrence of intercompany…

(a) if the Issuer is the lender…

(b) if the Issuer or a Guarantor is…

For purposes of determining…

(1) in the event…

(2) all Indebtedness…

In concept, and therefore in good practice, the second numbered list is not connected to the first one. They are separate lists. However, in Word numbering applied through paragraph styles (what many users are limited to), each paragraph style can only be connected to one list. So, in the example, if a paragraph style was being used to apply the “(1)” level, at the second list, applying that style would give you “(3),” not another “(1).” It would continue the same level of the same list.

In order to get each list to restart at 1, you would need to either manually reset the number to 1 each time, or use the arguably inelegant solution of creating a set of paragraph styles connected to an outline where the first level is not numbered (“This covenant will not prohibit the Incurrence of…” is level 1, and “(1)” is level 2, etc.). Some firms do this with Definitions sections. This solution works mechanically, but it suffers logically here, because these paragraphs are not distinct enough to merit a paragraph style. They’re merely body text, or bullet points. No one would think to give them a set of styles, were it not for the numbering.

List styles

A better solution for this scenario is using list styles, which, as I stated earlier, most users are unaware of, despite throwing the word “styles” around unceasingly.

A list style applies to—wait for it—lists! Not paragraphs. A “list” in Word meaning the numbering associated with a set of numbered or bulleted items. A list style applies to multiple lists the same way that a paragraph style applies to multiple paragraphs. So, in the offering memorandum example, where the problem is multiple lists, it’s the perfect solution.

A list style includes definitions for the numbering format: the type of number and its position for each level of an outline. To some extent, it overlaps paragraph style formatting, but only with regard to indentation.

It’s really obvious when you think about it. The main concept to conquer is thinking of lists as individual entities in the same way you think of paragraphs. Each can be controlled by “styles,” but they’re different types of styles. Use of the word “styles” without qualification is an unfortunate source of confusion. Also, list styles are not indicated in the user interface as clearly as paragraph styles are. You get to list styles through the multilevel list button.

Exhibits and schedules

Another situation where multiple lists confuse the traditional user is where exhibits or schedules use numbering that is separate from the main document.

Firms may have schemes that include separate paragraph styles for use in schedules. The issue, though, is often that the single set of styles is insufficient for multiple, different schedules. The traditional user is forced to change the numbers or their formatting to match the firm’s template, or give up and just use manual numbering.

The skilled user can create new outlines to handle each schedule. The programmer can write code to do so, saving invaluable time.

Examples of Complex Problems, Real Solutions – Part 1

In the traditional legal office environment, attorneys generally relied on secretarial and document support staff to do the work of creating and editing documents, which was considered a clerical task. As attorneys increasingly became computer users, they relied on the same staff for assistance with the more technical issues that complex software presents. Predictably, this didn’t work, and secretarial and document support staff numbers have diminished greatly.

In today’s environment, many attorneys have reasonably good computer skills; however, most are not “techies.” With modern office programs, there are tremendous opportunities for efficiency, but to know many of them and to be truly efficient requires being a techie.

A person with real technical skills as well as document skills is much more valuable than a traditional document support staffer. This post examines a few examples of situations where this is evident.


Numbering in Word

Numbering paragraphs in Word has vexed many people over the years. The simple fact is that it is a complex subject. There are so many ways that someone might want to number items in a document, and so many ways that Word supports numbering, that the interface cannot effectively present them all.

Traditionally, a firm’s technology department would set up a few numbering schemes that are common in that firm’s documents, and train the users to apply the numbering using the firm’s unique method. The users could thus handle the customary documents.

Now, however, it is common for attorneys to share documents with clients and with other attorneys from different firms. Since different firms have different methods of applying numbering, users face unfamiliar schemes.

To meet this challenge requires understanding how numbering works in Word, which is, as I’ve stated, a complex topic. Many traditional support staff users simply cannot handle it, telling attorneys that a document must be reformatted to the firm’s template, or that the document is “corrupt” or “unstable,” or some such excuse.

Understanding Word numbering requires study and training in how software works—data structures, lists, objects, etc. A highly skilled person who has studied computer science and Word can handle the challenges that numbering presents.

See separate blog post on numbering for more detail.

Find and replace using patterns

Word has a feature in its Find and Replace function called “wildcards.” It is infinitely useful in common document editing scenarios, yet it is almost completely unknown and likely unknowable to the traditional document support staffer.

Wildcards are a way of finding and replacing using patterns, rather than literal text. You search for a pattern, and replace, optionally preserving part of the specific text you find.

Since a pattern will cover many text items, it’s a way of doing multiple things at once.

Examples of where wildcards can dramatically improve efficiency:

  • Cleaning up a document converted from PDF. These documents have paragraphs broken up by hard returns in the middle of sentences (among other recurring patterns). A wildcard expression (representing the pattern of a character not typically found at the end of a paragraph—e.g., not a period or semicolon—followed by a paragraph mark) can be used to find and fix these.
  • Spaces. A wildcard can match extra spaces or not enough spaces. You don’t need to look for, literally, “two spaces.” You can look for “two or more” or “less than two.” (Examples: 1. You want two spaces at the end of sentences. Look for [period][one space][capital letter]; replace with [period][two spaces][the capital letter you found]. 2. You want to remove extra spaces in mid-sentence. Look for [not a period][two or more spaces]; replace with [the not-a-period you found][one space].)
    Without using wildcards, this stuff is maddeningly repetitive. You can hear traditional word processors hacking away at their keyboards for long stretches. “Whack!-boom-boom. Whack!-boom-boom. Whack!-boom-boom. Whoops!” That’s what it sounds like.
  • Defined terms. A wildcard expression can represent a pair of quotation marks and the text between them. (Advanced: I’ve written macros to find all quoted terms in a document, and format them, or output the terms and their locations to another document, which can be used as a helper in checking the defined terms.)

There are many other situations where wildcards are useful, many of which will be specific to a particular document. Being able to think in wildcards is invaluable, in terms of both speed and accuracy.

Track changes

Track Changes is another tremendously useful and efficient feature in Word that is underused in firms, likely due to skills limitations. Like numbering and wildcards, it is complex enough that it is optimally suited for educated users. Computer science knowledge (particularly the concepts of objects and scope) helps in mastering it.

When you use track changes, Word keeps track of the type of change you made (insertion, deletion, formatting, etc.), when you made it, and who made it (using the author information that is set at the scope, or level, of the entire MS Office suite).

Track changes are stored in the document as “Revision” objects. They contain the who-what-when data outlined above. What they do not contain, unlike simpler comparison programs, is presentation information, i.e., the color and other appearance attributes of the tracking itself, seen on screen and in print. This formatting is generated by the Word program at runtime, based on user-level settings (set through the Track Changes Options dialog box).

Therefore, it is a mistake to think that track changes in any document will look the same to another user. Don’t say, “My changes are in red,” or something like that. Understand that each user has the ability to view changes their own way. The data in the track changes, however (who, what, when), is always there.

Unlike a simple redline from a comparison program, you can get markup from numerous colleagues, and review and accept or reject each item of markup, all without disturbing the format of your document. Not disturbing the format also means you don’t need to keep markup out of your main document and duplicate changes from a redline. Just version up and do markup directly in the document.

Converting documents

Converting a document (typically from a PDF) involves so many skills, it is a tour de force for a truly skilled person. Even though you might consider it low-end as far as document work, the difference between the modern approach and the traditional approach will result in significant time savings.

(Advanced: One of the primary time drains in converting documents is reapplying character-level formatting after the plain text of the original is pasted into the new document. I’ve written code that preserves the character-level formatting without bringing over any of the paragraph-level formatting.)

Programming perspective

Almost everything in Word that can be done from the user interface can also be done from a programming interface, and, not surprisingly, much faster.

All of the above examples—numbering, wildcards, track changes, conversions—can be programmed to a great extent. Someone who understands the software and the document requirements, as well as knows how to program, can do such things as:

  • Create numbering outlines on the fly (where a document requires more than one simple list), or edit an existing outline;
  • Programmatically find and replace text, including patterns;
  • Manipulate track changes (e.g., accept all changes from a certain time frame, reject all changes for certain sections, etc.);
  • Automate much of the conversion process.

There are many more examples of the vast benefits of the modern model. More on this soon.