Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Tex. R. Evid. 401. "Questions of relevance should be left largely to the trial court, relying on its own observations and experience, and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." Moreno v. State, 858 S.W.2d 453, 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided by the constitution, statutes, rules of evidence, or other rules prescribed by statutory authority. See Tex. R. Evid. 402. Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b) requires evidence of an extraneous offense to be relevant apart from its tendency to prove the character of a person in order to be admissible. See Tex. R. Evid. 404(b). Although evidence of an extraneous offense may be relevant, the evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Tex. R. Evid. 403. We review a trial court's analysis of the probative value of an extraneous offense under an abuse of discretion standard. See Johnson v. State, 932 S.W.2d 296, 302 (Tex. App.--Austin 1996, pet. ref'd). Rule 107 is a rule of admissibility, and it applies broadly to any form of evidence; Rule 106 is a rule of timing that permits the opposing party to offer the remainder at the same time that the proponent offers a portion of a written or recorded statement. See 1 Steven Goode, Olin Guy Wellborn III, and M. Michael Sharlot, Texas Practice: Guide to the Texas Rules of Evidence: Civil and Criminal 106.1 (2d ed. 1993); see also Cathleen C. Herasimchuk, Texas Rules of Evidence Handbook, Rule 106 (3d ed. 1998). Rule 106 is based on two considerations: the danger that material may be made misleading by being taken out of context and the inadequacy of a delayed repair. See Jones v. Colley, 820 S.W.2d 863, 866 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1991, writ denied). Rule 107 permits the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence when that evidence is necessary to fully and fairly explain a matter "opened up" by the adverse party. See Credille v. State, 925 S.W.2d 112, 116 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd). Like Rule 106, the purpose of Rule 107 is to diminish the possibility of the jury receiving a false impression from hearing only a part of some act, conversation, or writing. See Cerda v. State, 557 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).