Allow me to construct the case with which I disagree: the argument that an 18% decrease in audiovisual investments is enough to trigger content quotas is appealing due to its simplicity. However, such a correlation, although relevant, does not capture the inherent complexity of legislative processes. Public policies, especially those that impose substantial economic obligations on global players like Netflix or Prime Video, are rarely instant reactions to a single statistic. The decline may have served as a catalyst or reinforcement for a decision already in the making, but presenting it as the sole trigger ignores the structural foundations and deeper political objectives. For example, Australia, like other jurisdictions, was already engaged in a long-standing debate on cultural sovereignty and the contribution of streaming platforms to the local ecosystem, well before this specific decline.