I’m seeing Phase II ESAs balloon when a single AFFF-use note or J-flag triggers presumptive PFAS sampling and clients balk at the added spend. How are you defending a defer-to-RI approach versus adding 4–6 groundwater samples at about 2 ng/L reporting limits when interim state criteria sit around 4 ppt? Looking for approaches that satisfy regulators while keeping the assessment proportionate to the likely remediation pathway.