The answer to a previously raised Question 1678 (given on 22 Nov 2018) implies that in a mass lapse stress one should change the expense assumptions. However, the report EIOPA-14-322 (The underlying assumptions in the standard formula for the Solvency Capital Requirement calculation) states on page 8 that an underlying assumption is that "The dependence between risks can be fully captured by using a linear correlation coefficient approach." This in my interpretation implies that the correlation between lapse and expense risk is intended to fully capture the likelihood that there will be an increase in expenses in a lapse shock. Hence this implies that one should use the same expenses in the lapse shock as are used in BEL. However, the answer to Q1678 is not consistent with this. Can you please clarify whether the answer to Q1678 is correct in light of EIOPA-14-322?