Although our management can adopt this proposal topic in one-year and one-year implementation is a best practice, this proposal allows the option to phase it in. MasterBrand shareholders could have voted on this widely supported and easy to adopt good governance proposal in 2025. However it is believed that MasterBrand used dishonest means to escape this improvement in its corporate governance in 2025. This does not speak well of the MasterBrand corporate culture and MasterBrand?s responsiveness to its shareholders. Electing all directors annually provides shareholders with the opportunity to evaluate the entire board's performance every year, rather than just a fraction of it. This frequent evaluation gives shareholders more leverage, particularly if management is underperforming or making controversial decisions, such as approving excessive executive pay. Majority voting in annual elections makes directors more accountable to shareholders instead of each other, in contrast to the less rigorous process that can occur in uncontested staggered elections. Annual elections make it more difficult for poorly performing or ineffective directors to remain in their positions, as they cannot simply rely on a 3-year term for protection. This structure promotes new leadership and fresh ideas, preventing a "fraternal atmosphere" that can favor the interests of management over those of shareholders. Annual elections pressure directors to perform well and stay actively engaged in their roles to retain their seats. The need to be re-evaluated each year encourages directors to be more responsive to shareholder concerns and demands. Competitive and meaningful director elections are considered a core element of good corporate governance, leading to a more vigilant and effective board.