need to have heard witnesses testify in order for correct decision to be read well i will answer that question but i will say that i'm not sure i agree with the premise of the question that that this is the case that depend on to demeanor based credibility of a terminations which is not what's at issue in this case the there is no indication that the administrative judge made demeanor based credibility determinations rejecting the testimony presented by the agencies separate duty to perform or supervisor supervising of screeners to answer questions about that came up during screening that were based on and so p s and as to when that got good performance ratings on that but the s the knowledge of the s o p that was a separate performance requirement that he be knowledgeable and the azubuike use directly tested that knowledge and there was substantial testimony  agency not only talking about how we as a p q's were developed but the fact that they had an expert chairman that the questions on the s a p q and the number of questions passing rate everything else was statistically how he would perform in the field but that's a separate duty it might be that some of the questions in the s m piece i mean everyone agrees that he has to have knowledge of yes a piece on any particular instance when mr willox actual performance might be being you wouldn't that's for sure it wasn't carefully to judge clinton ok it just to just question would would allow the government to ask m this was only three percent of the whose job being the score on the quiz was three point one point six percent of his job evaluation but this court has said that merely he had to take other objective actual you know testing situations his management abilities supervisory abilities and they were and i can point the court to the actual performance matrix which sets out all of the end they have only been three percent of his job evaluation but it was ten percent of the management technical proficiency critical requirement which in itself was about a third of his job valuation and again this court said and loves and that the the percentage that an agency assigned sometimes the agency even leaves very important factors out of the job valuation and that doesn't mean that they're critical to the job in this case the agency specifically denominated a critical element there was testimony as to how far the board can go by way of the value weighting something like the responsiveness of the test to the duties of the job i mean it of judging quite safe but she seemed to be touching on this issue of saying in effect that there was really no evidence that the quiz really demonstrated knowledge of the s o p s so how far does does the board go in doing that i mean if this were a great case for example we go pretty far to make sure that you weren't using a test as a pretext for a racially discriminatory hiring system or firing and so forth obviously that's not an issue here but how far can the board go in a in a case that doesn't involve allegations of an invidious selection in testing the test well i think the board tried to answer that question by saying that but even if he has very wide latitude very wide latitude but but presumably when that's well it's a good start but the board is that latitude and is there a way to characterize related to the efficiency of the service the nexus is not only going to the agency's policy but basically who are in the president at this court nexus is presumed when there is poor performance proof because the government obviously has a legitimate government interest in having  employees performance and factory i have a question about the douglas factors it seems to understand how the douglas factors work in the case of disciplinary action seventy five thirty seven eleven thirt y it's equivalent here but it's unclear to me why dogless really ought to apply in a performance based removal i mean if let's take the case in which is judge let me just example in which trial attorneys in the civil division are deemed to have a critical requirement of their job site check in and two attorneys one who's been there two years and another who's been there twenty years failed  checking test and they're both removed this douglas requiring us to consider whether the attorney was twenty years ought to have been retained and the attorney with two years not what the american application created is one action that must promote even the of the service but in cases of poor performance they spell out the fact that nexus is presumed and then they limit the penalties because they don't want to keep it doesn't make any sense to keep an the penalties to either removal or to reassignment to another position outside the screening system for which the employees qualified if there is one available and so the douglas actors have limited applicability in this case if for example  that i think you mentioned that this issue was settled with respect to chapter forty three is it settled by a case from this court yes actually yes i believe it's like