the audit and subsequent negotiations of the unit price in other words there was no agreement to apply new prices to were already perform i'm missing a little something here because well isn't there another intervening sort of issue which is really the last sentence which the jury quoted subsequent negotiations of unit price i thought the deal here was because the question here involved whether those negotiations were intended to have covered retroactive and prospect innocent another question in this case about what the nature of what the commitment was with respect to the scope of negotiation i don't think most reasonable interpretation of the language and see if that answers the question for you and only if you can't find what the correct construction is by docking the most reasonable construction do you belong to this interpretive rule of last resort reasonable alternatives we don't decide which is the most reasonable at the outset we need it on i already decided whether whether in fact each of each of the proposed instructions is reasonable and  and that's whether or not there are two reasons it's possible to have but that doesn't answer my question what case says that in terms and in determining whether there's an ambiguity that we don't ask ourselves what's the most reasonable construction of the actual language a contract preference him and and go through that procedure if there are two reasonable interpretations if if the court says this interpretation makes more sense that should be the end of it which is negotiations and so at the end of the day there was no commitment on its face to actually do this is that what you're saying is that on its face there's no ambiguity because at most all it requires is negotiation th no the ambiguity lies i think in part arguably in negotiations of the prices and the scope of the negotiations then of the prices where the price is ambiguous as to whether or not it would prices just simply apply for us now we did it did you did the government take this position before the board in other words that there's no ambiguity and on its face it's clear that the government concede or agreed or argue ambiguity snip the key question as to what remain in effect need remain in effect with respect to past work or remain in effect for the work under the extension welcome one might suppose that remain in effect means remain in effect for the for the for the ongoing work as opposed to the past where i think that you can really remain in effect i think if you didn't look at it  i mean this is always the case if you've got some agreement between the parties the other side presumably have all had always reviewed it and signed off on it so your it to me you're saying that this principle would never be applicable on any circumstance absolutely not construction i'm a little confused by the fourth factor because it seems redundant or sort of we were already visiting the reasonable factor i don't think so i think if we look at the status factor which on the analysis the way to get there first first play there's no ambiguity secondly even if there were ambiguity it would be paid certainly even if the ambiguity were late and this doctrine wouldn't apply fourthly even if this doctrine appl