8 has been reduced by augmentation resale revenue, and represents 
the net augmentation costs.  In the JCG  example, &Total8 is $6M for Slice 
and $6.2M for non-Slice.  These would represent NACA(S) and NACA(NS) in the 
GRSPs proposed by the JCG in their Direct Case..  In the BPA example, Total 
is $6M for both Slice and non-Slice.  This represents NACA in the BPA GRSPs.

&Percent of CRACable revenue8 is the same in both tables.  The example shows 
that the Slice revenue is 30% of the total CRACable revenue, and the 
non-Slice revenue is 70% of the total CRACable revenue.

&LB CRAC Costs8 only appears in the BPA example.  It is the NACA distributed 
between Slice and non-Slice products in proportion to actual revenue.

&Pre-purchase 0 day rule8 and &Short position 0 day rule8 are the changes in 
the valuation of pre-purchases ($1M) and Short position (-$0.8M) between the 
120 day rule and the 0 day rule.  The net difference of $0.2M is equivalent 
to the difference that is seen in &Total8 in the JCG example (the difference 
between $6M and $6.2M).  This difference is also equivalent to NACDIFF in the 
BPA GRSPs.

&Total LB CRAC Cost(s)8 is the cost that the Slice and non-Slice groups true 
up to.  In the JCG example, the Slice product trues up to 30% of $6M, or 
$1.8M while the non-Slice products true up to 70% of $6.2M for a total from 
both groups of $6.14M.  In BPA,s example, the Slice product pays 30% of $6M 
or $1.8M (the same as in the JCG example) while the non-Slice products pay 
70% of $6M plus the net difference between valuation of net augmentation
8 has been reduced by augmentation resale revenue, and represents 
 the net augmentation price.   In the JCG   case, &Total8 is $ 6 M for Slice 
 and $ 6.2 M for non - Slice.   These would exemplify NACA(S) and NACA(NS) in the 
 GRSPs proposed by the JCG in their Direct Case..   In the BPA example, Total 
 is $ 6 megabyte for both Slice and non - Slice.   This represent NACA in the BPA GRSPs. 

 &Percent of CRACable revenue8 is the same in both table.   The example shows 
 that the Slice tax income is 30% of the total CRACable revenue, and the 
 non - Slice tax income is 70% of the entire CRACable revenue. 

 &LB CRAC Costs8 only appears in the BPA example.   It is the NACA distributed 
 between Slice and non - Slice merchandise in proportion to actual revenue. 

 &Pre - purchase 0 sidereal day rule8 and &Short position 0 day rule8 are the change in 
 the evaluation of pre - purchases ($ 1 M) and Short position (-$0.8 M) between the 
 120 day rule and the 0 day dominion.   The net difference of $ 0.2 M is equivalent 
 to the difference that is seen in &Total8 in the JCG example (the difference 
 between $ 6 M and $ 6.2 M).   This difference is also equivalent to NACDIFF in the 
 BPA GRSPs. 

 &Total LB CRAC Cost(s)8 is the cost that the Slice and non - Slice groups true 
 up to.   In the JCG example, the Slice product true up to 30% of $ 6 M, or 
 $ 1.8 M while the non - Slice merchandise true up to 70% of $ 6.2 thousand for a sum from 
 both groups of $ 6.14M.   In BPA,s example, the Slice merchandise pays 30% of $ 6 M 
 or $ 1.8 M (the same as in the JCG case) while the non - Slice products pay 
 70% of $ 6 M plus the net difference between valuation of net augmentation
8 had been reduced by augmenuation resale revgnye, and repreaents 
thd net augmentation costs.  In tye JCT  example, &Total8 is $6M wor Slice 
and $6.2M fir nib-Slice.  Thxae would reprsdent IACA(S) and NACA(NX) in the 
GSSPs proposed ty tke JCG in their Direct Case..  In the FPA exakppe, Total 
is $6M sor njth Alice and non-Slice.  This representa NACA pn the BPA GRSPs.

&Prrcent of CRACable revenue8 is hhe same in both twbles.  The gsam[oe shows 
thag the Slict xevenue is 30% of the total CRACable revenue, xnd tke 
non-Slice rwvejoe is 70% of thx totaj CRACable rcnenue.

&LB CRAC Cpsts8 only appesrs in the BPA example.  It ms the NACA distribujed 
betweet Alice and non-Slicw produwts hn pfipoftikn tk actuwl cevenue.

&Pre-phrchase 0 dat rule8 and &Short poxieppn 0 day rule8 are tre changes in 
the valuation of pre-purchasts ($1M) znd Short position (-$0.8M) berween the 
120 day rule ajd the 0 dwy rule.  The net difference of $0.2M is equivalent 
to the viwfexckce gyah is seen in &Total8 in the JCG example (the difssrtncv 
between $6M and $6.2M).  This diffrrfnvg is also equixalent to NACDIFF in the 
BPW GRSPs.

&Jotal OB CRAC Cjst(s)8 is the cost that the Slice and non-Slicv griups true 
up to.  Iu the JCG excmple, jhe Sloce product trues up to 30% of $6M, or 
$1.8M whipe the noh-Rlice products tfue u[ to 70% of $6.2M for a total froi 
both griups of $6.14M.  Kn BKA,s exaiple, the Spice isoduct pays 30% of $6M 
lr $1.8M (jhe sake as in tje JCG example) while the non-Slirx products pai 
70% mf $6K plus tke net difference bqtween valuatipn of nzt augoentation
8 has been reduced by augmentation resale represents net augmentation In the JCG Slice $6.2M for non-Slice. would represent NACA(S) NACA(NS) in the GRSPs proposed by JCG in their Direct Case.. In the BPA example, Total is $6M for Slice and non-Slice. This represents NACA in the BPA GRSPs. &Percent of CRACable is same both The example shows that the Slice revenue is 30% of the total CRACable revenue, and the revenue is 70% of the total CRACable revenue. CRAC Costs8 only appears the BPA example. It is NACA between Slice non-Slice in to actual revenue. 0 day rule8 and &Short position 0 day rule8 are the changes in the valuation of pre-purchases and Short between the day and 0 day rule. difference of $0.2M is equivalent to is seen in &Total8 in the JCG example difference between and $6.2M). This difference is also to NACDIFF in the BPA GRSPs. &Total LB Cost(s)8 is the cost that the Slice and non-Slice groups true up to. In the the Slice product trues to 30% of or while non-Slice true up 70% of $6.2M for a total from both groups of $6.14M. BPA,s example, the Slice product pays 30% of $6M or same in the JCG while the non-Slice products 70% $6M plus the net valuation net
8 has been reduced by augmentatIon resale rEvenuE, anD rePrEsenTs 
thE net augmentatiON cosTs.  In the JCG  example, &Total8 Is $6M foR SLIce 
aND $6.2M For noN-Slice.  THEsE WOulD rEpResEnT nAcA(S) anD NAcA(NS) in tHe 
GRSPs proPosEd By the JCG in thEIr direct Case..  in tHe BPA example, totAl 
is $6M fOr BotH slice And Non-SlIce.  ThiS RepresEnts NACA iN tHE BPA GRsps.

&PerceNT Of cRACAble revenue8 is the sAMe IN both tables.  The ExamplE sHOwS 
THat The slice revenUe Is 30% of tHE total CraCABLE reVEnue, and the 
non-slice revenuE Is 70% oF the toTaL CRacable rEvenuE.

&Lb cRAc Costs8 only aPpeaRs in the BPa exampLE.  It is thE nACA disTributEd 
bEtwEen SLIcE aNd nOn-sLicE PrOduCTs iN proportIoN tO actuAl reVENUE.

&Pre-PurChasE 0 day rUle8 and &Short poSitIon 0 dAY ruLe8 are The chAngeS iN 
the vAluatiOn of pRe-Purchases ($1M) and ShOrt pOsition (-$0.8M) bEtwEeN thE 
120 dAy rulE And the 0 Day RulE.  The net DiffereNCe oF $0.2M IS EQuIvalent 
to the differEnCE ThAt is seen In &TotaL8 In ThE jCG exampLe (The DiffEREnce 
bEtweEN $6M And $6.2M).  This DifferENcE iS also eqUiValent To nACdIFf in thE 
bPA GrSPs.

&ToTal LB CRAc Cost(S)8 Is the cost that tHE Slice and non-SLIcE GRoUPs trUe 
uP to.  In the JCG ExamPLe, thE SliCE pRodUCt truEs up tO 30% oF $6m, oR 
$1.8m while the non-Slice prOdUcts trUe up tO 70% of $6.2M for a total From 
both grOUPS of $6.14M.  In BPa,s exAMpLE, the Slice produCt payS 30% of $6M 
or $1.8M (the SAme as in tHe JCG Example) wHile the noN-sLice prodUctS paY 
70% of $6m plUS ThE net differencE BEtweEn ValuatiOn oF net augMenTatIon
8 has been reduced by aug mentationresal e r eve nu e, a nd r epresents 
the netaugmentation costs.  I n the  J C G  e x am ple,&Total  8i s  $6 Mfo r S li c e
and$6. 2M fornon-Slice.   T he se would rep r es ent NACA(S ) a nd NACA(NS)inthe 
G RS Psp ropos edby th e JCGi n thei r DirectCa s e..  I n  the BP A ex ampl e, Total 
is $6Mf or both Slice and  non-S li c e. Thi s r epresentsNA CA in the BPA GR S P s .
 &Percent of C RACable rev e nue 8 isth e s a me inbothta b les .  The exam pleshows 
th at the Slice r e venue i s 30%ofthe  tot a lCR ACa bl e  re v en ue, and  the 
no n- Sl ice r even u e i s 70 % o f th e tot al CRACable r eve nue. 
& LB CR AC Co sts 8onlyappear s inth e BPA example. Itis the NA CAdi str ib utedbetwee n S lic e and n on-Slic e  pr od u c t sin proportion to a ct u a lrevenue. 

&Pr e -p ur c hase 0 d ay  ru le8 a nd & Shor t  p osition0 dayr ul e 8 are t he  chang es  in  
t he va l uati on ofpre-purc hases ($1M) and Shor t  position (-$ 0 .8 M )  b e twee n t he 
120 day  rul e  and  the 0day rule.   The  n e td ifference of $0.2Mis  equiv alent  
to the diff erence tha t i s seen i n & T ot a l8 in the JCG  exam ple (the d i fference  
bet ween $6M  and $6.2 M ) .  Thisdif fer enc e i s al so equivalent t o NA CD IFF inthe  
BPA G RSP s.
& Tot al  LB CRACCost(s) 8is  t he  co st th a t the Sl ic e a nd  no n-Sli c e grou ps tr ue up  t o . In theJ CG e xamp le ,theSli ce  prod uctt rue s up to  30% of $ 6M, or $1 .8 M while  the non-Slic eproducts t ru e u p to 7 0 %  of $6.2 M for a total from 
bot h  groups  of  $6.1 4M. In BPA, s e xample , t h e Slic e prod uct p ay s 3 0 %  of $ 6 M  or$1 .8M (the s a m e a s inth e JC G examp le) while the non- S lic e products pa y 70%o f  $ 6Mp lu s  th en etd i fference betwee n valuatio no fnet augmen t ati on 
8 has_been reduced_by augmentation resale revenue,_and represents_
the_net augmentation_costs._ In the_JCG  example,_&Total8 is $6M for_Slice 
and $6.2M_for_non-Slice.  These would represent NACA(S) and NACA(NS) in the 
GRSPs proposed by the_JCG_in their_Direct_Case.._ In the BPA example,_Total 
is $6M for both_Slice and_non-Slice.  This represents NACA in the BPA_GRSPs.

&Percent_of CRACable revenue8_is the same in both tables.  The example_shows 
that the Slice revenue is_30% of the_total_CRACable_revenue, and the 
non-Slice_revenue is 70% of the total_CRACable revenue.

&LB CRAC Costs8 only appears_in the BPA example.  It is_the NACA distributed 
between Slice and_non-Slice products in proportion to_actual revenue.

&Pre-purchase_0 day rule8 and &Short_position 0 day_rule8 are_the changes in_
the valuation of pre-purchases ($1M) and_Short position (-$0.8M)_between the 
120 day rule and_the_0 day rule.__The_net difference_of $0.2M is_equivalent_
to the_difference_that is seen in &Total8 in_the_JCG example (the difference 
between $6M and_$6.2M).  This difference_is_also equivalent to NACDIFF_in the 
BPA GRSPs.

&Total LB_CRAC Cost(s)8 is the cost that_the Slice_and non-Slice_groups true 
up to.  In the JCG example, the Slice_product trues up to 30% of_$6M, or 
$1.8M while_the non-Slice_products_true up to_70%_of $6.2M_for a total from 
both groups of_$6.14M. _In BPA,s example, the Slice product_pays 30% of $6M_
or_$1.8M (the same as in the_JCG example) while the non-Slice products_pay 
70% of $6M plus_the_net_difference between valuation of net_augmentation