decision contrary to the district court's order the parties by contract can expand the scope of judicial review of the court the court did not identify it is order any particular provision of the federal given the potential conflict between the whole case which came after it to first circuit cases which are repeatedly relied on and there's no reconciliation between there's no case reconciling halt which does the evidence even though there was an agreement to bifurcate the two issues there was no manifestation of an intent to allow the confirmation and i think that's a distinction that needs to be made although heart does allow for bifurcation it's it makes an express identify any particular evidence which would tend to either party to allow to become confirmable in fact to the contrary if you look at the timing of the request for confirmation it's about six months after the decision  as entered and there's no independent justification like there were in the other two cases that gave rise to coming in to confirm the order in fact in the case there was they were trying to vacate the order and there made a lot of  award itself if you read the award itself it specifically the plain language of the case that it's not final the court relied on not the court made some conclusion some inferences based on the language and i think those inferences were inappropriate likewise the reliance on collateral documents not specifically contained in the award i think was an error as well to confirm the court's conclusion what should have happened here is that ward be read on its face and there should be conclusion based on the language selected by the arbitrator his his version of finality may be different then and then additional then some conclusory statements in a letter there's no specific evidence before the court that it was quote unquote final as we especially given to stage two either damages stage but that didn't manifest any equivocation about the fact that the for the determination that there had been a failure i e medium to liability was itself it simply left a remediation question open if that is the best argument that you have the words for the non finality of it isn't isn't  if that was the intent from the language then you're correct it could easily be grouped in what it would call the quantum hearing which is which which would make sense but the word revisit would be completely unnecessary being read out of out of context i mean if there was a liability  thank you if there's no further questions reversed mission hall was something in her view entirely different and that was the parties contractually agree to change or expand the bases for vacating or modify an arbitrator's award where those bases are set forth specifically by statute and the supreme court said no the statute sets forth only bases to vacate modify is that i think it's clear that allows were among other things the bifurcation cia says in its papers that it is a nominal party only in that it really had nothing to do other than to employ a particular person on that they risk liability and ultimately will be damage if they really throw the questions i'll be happy to address them otherwise i would stand on my brief thank you