This must have been the point you were getting at when you were asking about who CSI is.
I can see the point you are moving to next:
If the CSI is a buffer for the RTC, and if the RTC's role is to protect intellectual property, and if they lawyers have admitted in court that the CSI is responsible for protecting intellectual property, then how can the RTC and CSI be said to be meaningfully separate entities?
So if the CSI has engaged in criminal behaviour, how can the RTC be insulated from this?
Was this what you were getting at Bea?
I guess it depends on what your definition of the root word 'mean' means.