$100,000 or 10%. The increases in revenue were the result of higher sales volumes to our existing customers and the conversion of our new utility customers that are commencing projects with Tantalus. Recurring revenue, recognized in Q3, increased to $3.4 million and represented 24% of total revenue in the quarter. As an aside, our annual recurring revenue, which we report on a rolling 12-month basis, grew by over 11% year-over-year and now stands at $13.5 million. This is a high watermark for us and demonstrates that recurring revenue continues to scale. The company delivered another strong quarter of gross profit margins at 55%. Margins within our connected devices segment increased as lower provisions for customer accommodations, warranty, and inventory obsolescence were recorded in the current period compared to last year. The gross profit margin in this segment includes the impact of tariff-related expenses. If you recall, Tantalus decided to absorb 5% of tariff-related charges in partnership with our customers. Our software and services segment delivered gross profit margins of 74%. It should be noted that our software and services segment is not impacted by tariffs. The slight decline over the prior period in this segment was due to a higher amount of revenues generated from installation services during the quarter. As a reminder, we offer installation services through third-party partners when a utility needs additional support to deploy our connected devices in the field. The company generated net income for the period of $384,000, reflecting an improvement on a comparative basis from the prior year period when we generated a loss of $361,000. The positive net income translated into a diluted income per share of $0.01, which compares to a diluted loss per share of $0.01. We delivered positive Adjusted EBITDA of $1.2 million during the quarter, reflecting an improvement compared to $585,000 in the prior year. The improvement in positive Adjusted EBITDA is a result of strong revenue growth, resilient margins, and disciplined cost management. We used approximately $1.3 million of cash flow from operations with year-over-year changes as a result of seasonal changes in working capital balances. The working capital changes were offset by higher operating income. As of September 30th, Tantalus had available liquidity of approximately $18.3 million, consisting of $9.8 million in cash and full borrowing availability of $8.5 million under our revolving line of credit facility. Based on the favorable results so far in 2025, we hit several new milestones on a trailing 12-month basis, including an all-time high for revenue generated over a 12-month period, which hit approximately $52 million. The new milestone is compared to $42 million of revenue last year. The strong growth on a comparative basis from a year ago is a reflection of the continued momentum in our market segment and the urgency in which utilities are upgrading their distribution grids. Recurring revenue generated over the 12-month period was also a record at $12.7 million, or 25% of total revenues. The aggregate growth of recurring revenue is a function of our business model and tied to the deployment of connected devices that lead to the activation of software licenses and opportunities to deliver analytics for as long as the device is in the field, which is typically 12 years-15 years. Gross profit margins remained strong at 54%, with the continued strength tied to the revenue contribution from software and services. We delivered positive Adjusted EBITDA of $3.5 million, reflecting an Adjusted EBITDA margin of 6.7%. The improving performance for Adjusted EBITDA is tied to strong revenue growth and completion of our research and development efforts to deliver the TRUSense Gateway. As we transition into the commercialization phase, our model affords us the flexibility to invest in sales and marketing, as well as advancements in our predictive AI-enabled data analytics offerings. Beyond the reported numbers, I thought it would be helpful to reference that approximately 88% of revenue generated during the quarter came from existing customers. This reflects our strong visibility with our existing customer base while improving our ability to convert and drive growth from new customers. Overall, we witnessed a very strong quarter and continue to make progress towards our objectives for 2025. I'll turn it back to you, Pete. Thanks, Azim. I would just highlight above and beyond the results from the trailing 12 months in Q3, an item that certainly is on everybody's mind, ties to the progress that we're making with the TRUSense Gateway. As we shared last week in earnings, we now have 52 utilities that have placed orders, and we are working hard to begin fulfilling those orders and getting TRUSense Gateways into the field as those utilities work through their field trials. It's well beyond our internal expectations in terms of the number of utilities that would evaluate the TRUSense Gateway in the first 12 months since commercializing the capabilities, and we're extremely excited on what that means for us moving forward. Incremental to expanding the number of utilities deploying the TRUSense Gateway, I'd also reference that we've hit a record result in orders that we've converted out of our sales pipeline. As we shared last week, the amount that we've converted out of the pipeline through the first nine months of the year surpasses any prior complete year of orders converted out of a pipeline. It's the second time in our company's history where we've been in the $50 million threshold, above $50 million in orders converted, and we still have the balance of the fourth quarter to go. Pretty successful results from a financial perspective and certainly good progress from a commercial perspective. Deb, with that in mind, I think probably best to open up for Q&A and make sure we cover any topics that participants on the webinar have for us. Okay. First question is, based on the 52 utilities currently undergoing field trials with Gateway, if they're all deployed at full scale, what would that mean in terms of revenue and ARR? Yeah, we haven't. Thanks for the question. I certainly appreciate the merits of it. We have not provided, nor do we intend to provide, guidance on the financial results or financial forecast of the business. The aggregate opportunity of the 52 utilities is in excess of $100 million of incremental opportunity upfront. I can't give you an appalled-mark estimate on what that means in terms of recurring revenue, but we are seeing the pricing that we have shared for the TRUSense Gateway be accepted by utilities, where we'd be generating over $10 per connected device or per connected TRUSense Gateway per year out of the box. The recurring revenue model continues to get validated. I just—I can't calculate what that means on—well, we're not willing or able to share what that actually means in terms of dollar amounts moving forward. Okay. Thanks, Pete. Another audience question. We'd love a framework on what your medium-term expectation is for TRUSense Gateway, understanding adoption can take time with utilities. You have 150,000 units of contract manufacturing capacity today. Is that a good estimate of what you'd like to get on a yearly unit sales basis? I'll take the second portion of that question first. At $550 per connected device for the TRUSense Gateway, if we are able to ramp to a full 155,000 units a year, we're talking about a very different type of company here in terms of scale and size. What I'd say is we are doing the necessary internal planning to ensure that we not only have adequate capacity, but we diversify where that capacity comes from. Today, Tantalus has got a long-standing relationship with IMI as our contract manufacturer based out of the Philippines. The factory that produces our TC modules and the TRUSense Gateway comes from the Philippines, and that's where the factory is located. I think as a management team, we're not only thinking what the aggregate capacity is above and beyond what IMI is capable of building on our behalf, which is estimated at about 150,000 units plus a year, but also thinking about geographic diversification. We are doing the necessary planning to be able to support a variety of different scenarios that may unfold for the business. In terms of trying to get an extrapolation on the first portion of the question on timing and adoption, the best way to answer that question ties to the experience that we've had in rolling out the latest version of our TC module, which we continue to improve and enhance over the years and certainly enhance the computing capabilities. Through the TC module, which was launched in conjunction with my arrival as CEO, I'd say if you look at a three- to four-year timeframe for utilities to deploy and some extend out to five years, the first 12 months can be some combination of a very small field trial, piloting in the way some describe it, or phase one of a deployment. Depending on where utilities are located, some utilities will run that analysis for 13 months. The rationale behind 13 months is understanding what the device does during the winter season and then understanding what the device does during the summer season in places that see pretty substantial extremes in weather, as well as electric demand. Our goal is obviously to shorten that timeframe, and not all utilities operate that way. Some utilities run a three-month or six-month or nine-month pilot and do not have to worry about multiple peaks or significant variation in climate. The nice thing from our perspective in looking at the history of TC modules, starting first very slow, first 12, 18 months, and then ramping, you can kind of think of bell curve on deployment. Year two is always bigger than year one. Back half of year two and first half of year three is where the utilities are running the fastest. As you get towards the back half of year three and into year four, that is where utilities are filling in gaps or filling in locations that are harder for them to reach or may not necessarily have as much value in upgrading. I think the TRUSense Gateway will work pretty similarly to that. I’d say we also have to keep in mind that the TRUSense Gateway, we talk about it as a standalone device, and I understand the flurry of questions that come from it. The TRUSense Gateway is part of a broader platform. It’s part of a broader set of solutions. We talk a lot about being a hardware-enabled software company. Our focus is to get connected devices in the field, whether that’s a TC module integrated into a meter, whether that’s a load control switch, whether that’s a TRUSense Gateway, whether that’s some other incremental hardware device that we innovate with and create in the future. The goal is to access the right types of data that solve very specific problems for utilities and run that data through an expanding suite of software and analytics. I’m not trying to sidestep the question. I also want to make sure we don't lose sight of the fact that, example, the city of Bolivar that we announced as one of the first utilities to deploy the TRUSense Gateway, that's being done in the context of a comprehensive upgrade of their advanced metering infrastructure with Tantalus, where the TRUSense Gateway is one piece of a much larger deployment for the utility. Similarly, we've obviously shared a lot of exciting news and progress with EPB earlier this year because it represents the first substantial commercial adoption in terms of volume. We're talking tens of thousands of devices that they've committed to purchase over a five-year timeframe, significant revenue associated with that for the company. The TRUSense Gateway is one part of a much broader upgrade that's unfolding with EPB as they look to deploy simultaneously our latest and greatest TC modules integrated into some of our OEM partner meters. I think as the TRUSense Gateway unfolds, and the reason why I provide that context a little bit well beyond the context of the question asked specifically, is we certainly are tracking what the deployment rate and the deployment plans are for the TRUSense Gateway. For a lot of the utilities, it's one piece of a much larger puzzle that ties to a deployment. In my opinion, today, of the 52 utilities, the vast majority certainly are existing customers, which represent 70% of that 52 set of customers. They're deploying the TRUSense Gateway as an incremental component to an existing system and as an incremental set of data that feeds into our analytics capabilities. That's why it's so hard to really respond with granularity in terms of the standard utility is going to deploy this number of units over this period of time, and you can expect the ramp as follows. I appreciate that really becomes problematic as investors try to think modeling. What I would point to is, are we seeing an increasing number of utilities placing orders and deploying the TRUSense Gateway? Are we seeing a higher growth rate of orders in the aggregate? Our orders have grown over 30% year-over-year, while revenue is up 22%. We're adding to backlog, and we're building to visibility to support the growth rate of revenue in the aggregate for 2026 and beyond. I think those are really the two primary metrics that we'll point to. It's just trying to be very transparent relative to what we can share publicly, Deb, and certainly in the absence of providing guidances to what the 2026 revenue number is going to be and how much of that is coming solely from the TRUSense Gateway. Azim, I don't know if you want to add any incremental color in thinking on that question. No, I agree with you. I think looking at the number of utilities and the orders is the right way to think about it. I had another question. I went down a couple of different rabbit holes there, but all related to what's the deployment schedule? How many can you build? How comfortable with manufacturing? The answer is we're comfortable with manufacturing. We're comfortable with the capacity access that we have. We're planning to diversify and expand that access as we see appropriate, and we're seeing an increasing number of utilities come to Tantalus as a trusted Tantalus partner or technology partner. All good. I think it's helpful for investors to understand how deployments are potentially going to roll out. I think that was meaningful context. Pete, I had another question about your contract manufacturing. You answered part of it, so I'm just going to ask part of the question. It sounds like the investor is asking not just about geographic diversification, but are you planning to use a different manufacturer other than IMI? That's the first part of the question, I think. I think it's prudent for management to constantly be thinking about the mitigation of risk. We do that every day on behalf of our shareholders, our customers, and our employees. To that extent, as we scale this business and we think about a multiple of growth in terms of where we are today, it's incumbent on Tantalus to be thinking about how we diversify contract manufacturing. IMI has been a terrific partner for us for over a decade, since and before my arrival. There's nothing to suggest that IMI is incapable of supporting our growth. They are capable of supporting a geographic diversification as they have factories in multiple places around the country, around the world. As we think about scale and we think about risk, being dependent on one contract manufacturer as we scale as an organization is a form of risk, no different than a single-source component or the lack of a succession plan in the event someone disappears on our team for whatever reason. I think in the context of risk, the answer is yes. We are doing what I think is appropriate in evaluating a diversification of our contract manufacturing as we think about scale and long-term sustainability. How long would it take to set up another relationship or another line with IMI? What would be the timing if you decided to pull the trigger on it? Yeah. Bifurcating that question, IMI has been unbelievably supportive and responsive to Tantalus. I like to provide answers in the form of fact and data. During Trump 1.0 in the 2018 timeframe, when his administration activated tariffs against China for the first time, the primary factory we relied upon within IMI's set of factories was based in China. As we started to see the threat of tariffs and I'd say the commentary from Trump's administration when he first went into the White House, we started planning with IMI for worst-case scenarios. When those tariffs went into place, and I think it was early July of 2018, we were up and running and able to declare made in the Philippines to mitigate tariffs within a matter of weeks. The planning to do that took several months. As we think about some of the uncertainty with tariffs today, whether that ties to the Supreme Court's assessment in the United States, whether that ties to how things changed through, I think it's true to social and what unfolds day to day in the world of President Trump, we are actively, I think, evaluating today with IMI where else the TRUSense Gateway could be built to mitigate tariffs and reduce the landed cost to our customers, the utilities that we serve. Our history and experience with IMI was several months of planning, lineup, and running. For the TRUSense Gateway, if we were to go into one of their existing factories, test infrastructure is the longest lead time component to setting up a new line. It's our intellectual property within that test infrastructure. We are very specific about how we test our products that are coming off the factory line within IMI's factory. It would be that way with any other contract manufacturer. I'd say we're doing our best to make sure we have adequate test infrastructure in the event we need a second location in the immediate term. I'd say it's months of planning and then weeks of activation, pretty quick, fortunately. For somebody brand new, I'd say to migrate into a top 20, a top 10 contract manufacturer, ESM provider, it's probably six months of assessment and evaluation. It's then probably another six months to nine months to set up a line and train dedicated staff. We probably will run testing for a good six months to make sure that the products coming off of that line meet our expectation from a quality perspective. All in, 18 months from day one of assessment to 24 months. I'd say we've been actively assessing alternative contract manufacturers already with the understanding of how long it would take to really have somebody up and running in full capacity the way we have with IMI today. Okay. I think that we've covered. Are those answers that subset of questions on contract manufacturing, Deb? I think we've covered it. I can't think of anything else to ask you about IMI, but if I do, I'll let you know. Yeah. Contract manufacturing in general, I'd say. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. There's always things that could surface, but I think our manufacturing team and our supply chain team are on this like wet on rice and preparing accordingly to mitigate risk and disruption in any form or fashion that may surface for the company. Makes sense. After that, I think you should take a break, and we'll give Azim a question or two. So Azim, should we expect some operating leverage over the next year or so given the ramp down in R&D costs related to the TRUSense Gateway and some incremental growth? I think the way to think about our OpEx is there'll probably be a shift or there will be a shift from R&D expenses to sales and marketing as we focus on commercialization of the TRUSense Gateway. The way to think about it is we're expecting revenue increase year-over-year. We'll see a shift of expenses from R&D to sales and marketing, and we may end up seeing an incremental increase in overall OpEx. The end result is an expansion of Adjusted EBITDA margin. That's how I would be thinking about it. That's helpful. I have a couple of questions on the core business and what kind of growth you expect to see. As Pete mentioned, we don't provide forward guidance, but I think looking at analyst expectations for 2026 would provide some visibility on how we're thinking about the business and the growth prospects for the business. Okay. A couple of other questions here. As management signals a potential return to M&A in 2026, what's the strategic framework for acquisitions? Are you looking to acquire technology, customers, new market access? How are you thinking about potential acquisitions? The short answer is all of the above. I think in terms of acquisitions, there's really two key criteria that we focus on. Clearly, the first one is it has to be accretive to earnings per share or Adjusted EBITDA per share. I think that's the first thing to look at. Secondly is strategic rationale. How does it allow us to either expand into new markets or new product lines? Probably the other consideration would be the ability to bolt on to the business as opposed to something that's more transformative. Pete, I don't know if you have comments to add. Yeah. I'd say the great debate between members of our management team would be Azim's primary comment. I think I would prioritize strategic rationale in my capacity as CEO and certainly then want to make sure that over a period of time, what we buy is accretive to the financial performance of the company. We are trying to accelerate in the context of a growth organization. I would point to the landscape slide in our investor deck, I think, as the best way to really kind of think about what we're doing. Our strategy remains consistent, which is to meet utilities where they are in the context of grid modernization. For us, grid modernization is from substation down to device behind the meter. The first acquisition in this context was Congruitive that for us isn't necessarily driving revenue in and of itself, but it makes the overall platform and the solutions that much more differentiated and competitive as we think about layering on capabilities. I think when we start to think about acquisitions, we'd look to figure out how we fill in capabilities and/or accelerate time to market of the solutions to the left side within the distribution grid and to the right side of this slide. How do we accelerate our access to and control of behind-the-meter load-consuming devices? I think that's we maintain a view of the industry and certainly see a number of smaller organizations, some of which have had commercial success to a certain extent, but don't have necessarily channel or distribution capabilities the way we've built at Tantalus. I'd say there's, I think, over the next year or two, the price of interesting opportunities for us to consider. Okay. I had another question, which I think maybe needs some clarification. Are you seeing metering partners taking steps to develop the edge capabilities in-house? I am not sure if they mean specifically TRUSense or if they are referring to TC modules. Maybe I will throw it over to you in two parts, Pete. Yeah. I'd say we compete and partner with meter vendors and traditional meter companies today. In some circumstances, that competition is head-to-head in pursuing the same set of utilities as they evaluate technology to enhance or automate their metering infrastructure for sure. I'd say that's where the heaviest competition lies. Meter partners that we have today, of which there are three, they all have their own edge computing capabilities and have had that for over a decade. What we find is meter partners, in terms of their edge computing, take a different approach than we do. I think their technology architecture is slightly different, and it's always bundled into their meter. We provide optionality by putting an edge computing device on a module that gets integrated into a variety of meters from different vendors. That flexibility can be deemed as in and of itself an advantage. I'd say we are constantly, it's coopetition in the form of cooperating and competing day-to-day with the meter vendors the way we're constituted today in terms of putting our edge computing technology into the metrology from a third party, whether that's Itron, Landis+Gyr, or Aclara. I'd say we partner well with all three companies. We compete head-to-head with them, all three companies. As it relates to the TRUSense Gateway, no, we have not seen a competing product from the meter partners today. I'd say their latest metering platforms are improved and provide some level of incremental data sensing, but it is not to the granularity or the level of what we have in the TRUSense Gateway. It is dependent on a rip and replace of meters, which we see an increasing number of utilities very hesitant to do. I'd say the TRUSense Gateway is sort of the antithesis of a meter manufacturer's model to a certain extent, which is come out with a new metering platform, convince utility to upgrade, rip and replace meters, build meters through factory, ship, 10 years later, go back with a new meter platform, ask utilities to rip and replace. The TRUSense Gateway takes a very different approach in terms of leveraging existing infrastructure and extending the life. We don't see direct, well, we don't see a competitive product to the TRUSense Gateway from our meter partners at this point. I'd be surprised if we do, but we don't know what we don't know in terms of what they might have in their roadmaps. One other audience question. Data center build-out pace is a daily topic of the headline item. What sort of feedback are you hearing from utilities, and what's your sense of urgency on their part, and how does this tie back to Tantalus? Yeah. It's a great, great question and very topical. Data centers is a very tangible example of what's referred to as capacity constraints in the utility industry, meaning data centers are going to consume a ton of power relative to the amount of power that a distribution utility has access to or is contracted for from a generating utility. You get an imbalance between the amount of power that's accessible versus the amount of power that needs to be consumed. When a data center shows up within or a town, a city, a community from an economic development perspective is bidding to have a company come in and open up a data center and drive growth and economic development for that town, it puts immediate stress on the utility. With that said, the largest of the large data centers are typically being built with a dedicated mini substation and some form of distributed energy right at the location. Where we come into play is not inside that data center or not necessarily to the substation that is potentially built solely for and to support that data center. It is all of the power quality data and all of the control of what is being consumed on the balance of the distribution grid. If you start to see, if a utility starts to see, because of a weather pattern as an example, predictive models that they rely on every day that looks at their load forecast, how much power is going to be consumed relative to how much they have available, our technology comes into play for the utility to protect that data center by shifting peak load, by reducing load in other locations on their grid, all of which is intended to protect the transformers, a series of other distribution automation equipment, and the substation itself. In my opinion, the data center puts pressure on the utility. The only way for the utility to truly be prepared for that is through grid modernization and power quality improvement. The TRUSense Gateway, our TRUConnect AMI, our TRUFlex solution are all geared towards giving the utility flexibility to shift and move peak as well as constantly improving their power quality metrics. That's helpful. Thank you, Pete. Another question. You added 52 utilities trialing TRUSense in the past year. I think most of those were year-to-date. Do you have any targets in terms of what you internally would be happy with in terms of additions for 2026? It's a tough question to answer as we, in and of ourselves, are in real time going through our 2026 budgeting exercise and thinking about a set of objectives for the organization. Going into 2025, our internal target—I think I've shared this on a few occasions—was to try to get orders from 20 utilities. When we surpassed that pretty quickly, we doubled it to 40. We've surpassed that. There is enough growth opportunity from the 52 utilities to support what consensus is in 2026 and 2027 for those that have put numbers out and to drive sustainable growth for our organization for the next three to five years. That's how much opportunity there is in front of us already. It is a good—as we think about 2026, the question we are asking internally is not only how do we convert and what targets should we set for the sales organization to expand the universe of utilities, but simultaneously for our operations team and our manufacturing team, how do we get those 52 utilities moving as fast as possible? We have not specified a number just yet internally. I am remiss to put a number publicly on the webinar today before our team really locks something down. I would expect growth, though, both in terms of the revenue contribution and financial performance from the 52 that are in hand that contribute in 2026, and simultaneously, as we demonstrate success within that 52 utilities and incremental set of utilities that want to join the party. That's a good answer for a non-answer. Thanks, Pete. It's an impossible one. Yeah. I had one more question. As you think about the—what is it?—the Utility of the Future survey that you do every year at your users' conference and some of the feedback you've gotten from utilities, as you get more of that feedback or the historic feedback that you've been through, I know you created TRUSense to address a lot of that. Do you see TRUSense evolving to continue to address those concerns, or do you think there's going to be additional product development that comes in the next few years? How are you thinking about TRUSense being able to kind of evolve to cover those concerns versus maybe there's another product that comes under development or another need utilities have that needs to be addressed and you guys have the capabilities to do it? Have you thought about that, or are you still just solely focused on commercialization of the product? We're constantly thinking about—thanks for the question. I'd say we're constantly thinking about what's next, where I think the near-term focus—and we see this loud and clear not only through the survey that we run, but also feedback from industry analysts and consultants and themes that are getting increasing attention at industry events and trade shows. That is tied to how do utilities manage the existing data they already have access to from stuff in the field and integrate new data from devices that are being deployed like the TRUSense Gateway. I think data management and analysis of that data and the predictive tools that can be built as a result is where we are prioritizing our focus. That is more on the software and analytics side. An extension of that is then how do we roll that out? How do we bring it to market? That gets to a service offering, particularly for some of the smaller utilities that do not have robust IT support and IT teams. I think that is where our focus is as we think about how we leverage the TRUSense Gateway over the next several years. With that said, Deb, I could envision some expansion of functionality and features of the TRUSense Gateway as we think about the concept of a virtual power plant longer term for utility. Being able to, with a meter, there is something called a remote disconnect meter, send a signal from a computer terminal, turn power off at the house completely. What our device is not is what is referred to as a microgrid interconnection device, an MID, where a battery, solar, or some form of storage is behind the meter. From a safety perspective, we can identify where that exists. We don't necessarily have the ability of turning off the flow of power coming back up from that home or from that meter as we think about workforce safety. Whether we turn the TRUSense Gateway to add some form of incremental disconnect capability that would tie to a qualification of a microgrid interconnection device, that's a hardware exercise. We're not there yet. I don't think the market need is there yet. As we think longer term on what we do with the TRUSense Gateway based on what's being put in the field today, I think there's some options to expand. If you were to add something like that on, do you have to go through the whole certification process again? Yep. Incrementally, though. I'd say as you add incremental capabilities to something that's already certified, it's not as unpredictable or as painful a process. Got it. Okay. Got another audience question here. Do you currently have third-party partners assisting with hardware, software, TRUSense deployment at utilities? If not, is this an opportunity you'd consider to accelerate growth? I think he's talking about installations. Yeah. That's how I would interpret. We outsource installation when utilities ask for—let me backtrack. Most utilities install our connected devices directly with their own personnel. EPB, for an example, all the installations will be done by EPB personnel. We train them, but all of that is done in-house within the utility. There are some utilities that look to outsource installation of devices, ours or others. We have a variety, a set of partners that we leverage and utilize when installation is required at a utility. Azim makes comment to that in some of our quarterly updates. Installation services is something that we sort of pass through to the utility and add markup for our oversight and project management. That comes in at a lower gross profit margin than our own devices, software, and services. Sometimes that's a drag. It's an increase in the aggregate revenue and gross profit, but it's a drag on margin. I would say we are not considering getting into the installation business. It's a different workforce in the U.S. State by state, it can be unionized labor. It's bucket trucks and heavy equipment that's required. It's just a different balance sheet and different area of focus. It's not our core competency, nor would I advocate to get into that market. I think there are a lot of well-established companies that already have field service personnel and technicians that are capable and competitive. Okay. I do not see any other audience questions, and I have already annoyed you with all my own. I think we can end the session here. If anyone has any additional questions, please feel free to reach out to me. I appreciate everyone in the audience taking time to participate and for your questions both in the session and in advance. Thanks, Azim and Pete, for giving us an hour of your time to do another walk through the quarter and answer some additional questions. It is greatly appreciated. Thanks for facilitating, Deb. Thanks to everybody for the time and attention and the great set of questions. Thanks. Congrats on a great year so far. Thank you. We'll look forward to providing an update as we get through Q4 and into.