Hey, everyone. Good morning. My name is Tejas Savant. I work on the life sciences team here at Morgan Stanley. Before we begin, some important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley Research Disclosure website at morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales rep. It's my pleasure today to host Akoya Biosciences, and speaking on behalf of the company, we have Brian McKelligon, CEO, and Johnny Ek, CFO. Thanks, guys, for joining me today. Brian, can you talk about how 2024 has played out so far versus your initial expectations at the start of the year? And just talk about the key accomplishments that you're most proud of, you know— Okay -in the last twelve months or so. First, thanks for having us. Of course. It's been a great conference, as always. I think for us, you know, like many, we faced some headwinds in the market, but I think we were thankful that we were able to do a couple of very important things to solidify our future. One is, bringing the manufacturing internally was significant. Mm-hmm ... because the market is now getting to the point where we're moving away from the early adopters, and you need to really have a robust, systematic, easy-to-use platform. Growth and availability, and high quality of your reagents is super important. Bringing that in helps our margins. The second thing is, we're really beginning—we are beginning to realize, I think, the foundation of the company, and, and having a portfolio— Mm-hmm ... that goes from discovery to diagnostics, while at the same time, with current late-stage clinical assets, we're working hard with our partners to really realize the CDx opportunities. We're really seeing the acceleration and maturation of that. Yeah. In the face of the headwinds, I think the operational excellence and solidifying our path to profitability and the advancements of the clinical, I think were the positives in the face of the challenges Bill was speaking of. Got it. Yeah. Fair enough. Maybe, let's start at the, at a high level. You know, you offer one of the leading solutions for spatial proteomics. How does the market compare with that for transcriptomic technologies? As we look at RNA versus protein, most basic and spatial, it's probably about fifty-fifty. Mm-hmm ... right now. Mm-hmm. I think as you look at the unit sales, for example, in Q2. Mm-hmm ... between us and the, the RNA companies, they're very similar. Mm-hmm. I think longer term, as you-- I think the DeciBio report did a really good job of mapping out the spatial market, where they look at translational as the largest portion of that market segment. Mm-hmm. Clinical is the most rapidly emerging and highest value. As you move farther downstream, it becomes more and more about protein. Mm-hmm. I think that is what gives us a lot of confidence, while at the same time, you know, that discovery market on the spatial RNA is gonna continue to grow. Over time, we think protein begins to dominate the market. Got it. Yeah. You mentioned Akoya is, you know, uniquely positioned to serve customers across the spatial biology- Yeah ... spectrum, from, you know, biomarker discovery to translational research, and then the clinic as well. Can you talk about the requirements for each of those, you know, niches, if you will? And how are Akoya's, you know, platforms positioned to serve customers across those end markets? If you're talking about the discovery market, I think what we think the base requirements are is the ability to deliver high-plex. Mm-hmm. To be able to do that with a speed that's consistent with the project size, 30, 40, 50 samples, get that done in a week or so. Mm-hmm. And be able to support standard microscope slides, which has a really large imaging area. Right. But also have a platform that has an inherent capability to scale, so you don't have- you don't get stuck in an instrument refresh cycle. I think we have all of that, and our ability to scale is really founded on the molecular barcoding approach that we use. Mm-hmm. We're routinely... Right now, our customers are fifty or sixty plex. We're gonna continue to build on that technology, so the one hundred plex becomes routine. Mm. That's the requirement in discovery. The requirement in the, in the late translation of the clinical market is, you need to do 50 samples a day, it needs to have intra- interstudy reproducibility. Mm-hmm ... your box has to be built under design control, deployed in a CLIA setting, and have a path to the IVD. Mm-hmm. Those are the requirements of the clinical market, and that's kind of what we serve with the HT. Because it serves those needs, that's why the clinical opportunity is continuing to grow. Got it. Yeah. Makes sense. One of the critiques that we sometimes hear about spatial proteomics is that, you know, while there is a clearer and more near-term path to the clinic here, the pull-through on the instruments is sort of structurally lower versus, you know, the RNA approaches. What's your take on that? And do you see a situation where, you know, essentially, what gets you to higher pull-through is essentially the unlock on the clinical side of things? It's, it's a good question, and I think there's, there's two different narratives. On the discovery side, with the PhenoCycler- Mm-hmm ... when we launched that product, the pull-through was, like, $20,000 per instrument. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. It's up to $55,000. That's happened because of upgrades, expansion of plex level, and we think that arc continues. Mm-hmm ... as we get to higher and higher plex for some of the reasons I talked about. Mm-hmm ... with the molecular barcoding and increased speed. Mm-hmm. We think that continues. On the, on the high-throughput clinical side, it is step function. Got it. Right? Where you launch these clinical tests, and now you've got three to five sites that now really throw that average off. I mean, it puts you in a tough position because, you know, we tell it, but we disclose instrument numbers and pull-through— Right ... but you don't get instrument numbers or pull-through from our peers. Right. It puts you in a tough position to try to compare that, so yeah. Got it. Fair enough. That's actually a nice segue into my next question on just competitive differentiation. Yeah. You know, you've got Techne, COMET there, Bruker, CellScape. I know you've said in the past, Brian, that you don't run into too many head-to-head situations, but as customers are trying to, you know, pick the platform they'll use for spatial proteomics, how are they—how are they making a decision? Yeah. What are the parameters that they make that decision based on? You know, I would, I would, I would... The head-to-heads, really not with the RNA companies. Obviously, with Lunaphore as part of Bruker. Mm-hmm. That's gonna happen. Yeah ... with growing frequency. Mm-hmm ... just because now they've got a larger channel. Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry, what was the question about again? Oh, so the question was just about how customers go about making a decision as they're looking at you guys versus CellScape versus COMET. Not so much CellScape, but versus the COMET, I think the basic—it's really about some of the basic specifications. How big is the imaging area? Yeah. What's my plex level? What con- what, what is my research area? Mm-hmm. If it's immunology, immuno-oncology, we have a lot of content. Mm-hmm. I think those are some of the core things, throughput, and then the ability for the system to continue to scale in plex levels. Mm-hmm. 'Cause that's what we're seeing, is initially when we launched the PhenoCycler, the average plex level was in the low twenties. Mm-hmm. Now the mid-forties, now 50-60 is routine. Yeah. We think that that continues to map up to the hundred plex. That path to scalability and the size of that imaging area is really, really important, because you can put three, four, five, 15 samples per slide. Yeah. You know, to your point on just the commercial channel— Yeah ... that, you know, after the Lunaphore acquisition, COMET has access to. Yeah. Where do you think they're, they're getting traction? It's hard to say because we have visibility to some of their- Mm-hmm ... opportunities. Mm-hmm. And they don't necessarily kind of fully disclose units- Right ... so you have to kind of impute. You assume it's kind of high teens- Right ... in terms of number of boxes. Uh-huh. I think, you know, we did 52 in Q2. Mm-hmm. I think they're finding opportunity spaces that are kind of between our HT system, which is a six or seven plex, where you can do, you know, 50 samples a day. Mm-hmm. The PhenoCycler, where it's fifty to one hundred plex. I think their twenty plex realm and where they're getting traction are areas likely outside of where we have content. Got it. 'Cause that's, when you have content on our platform. Right ... you can just scale and run. Right. I think that's where they're getting traction. As we scale our content, which is why we brought manufacturing internally— Mm-hmm ... I think that's a growing competitive advantage for us, 'cause- Right ... we can eliminate that variable. Got it. Yeah. Similar sort of question on, you know, Bruker's acquisition of NanoString. You know, again, like, not much of an overlap- Mm ... you know, RNA versus protein. Yeah. But, you know, Bruker could potentially do some interesting things, like bundling the solution and, and- Mm-hmm ... bring people into the ecosystem. How are you thinking about that evolving longer term? Yeah, so in the near term, it will be interesting to see if they reignite the NanoString commercial channel. Mm-hmm. Because what we are absolutely seeing, as really none of the companies in spatial have, have captured that unicorn of true high-scale multiomics. Right. There is a lot of complementary work that is happening with the Xenium and the PhenoCycler, with the CosMx and the PhenoCycler. Okay. I think them getting back out with the CosMx is gonna be good for that competitive marketplace. Mm ... and help the complementarity of it. Mm-hmm. In terms of longer term, how they leverage all those assets to become a more direct competitor for us in the translational and clinical space, I don't know how they put that together yet. Hmm. Yeah. Got it. Fair enough. What are your plans for expanding into RNA, Brian? I know you have the collaboration with Thermo to license and distribute— Yeah ... you know, ViewRNA. Talk to us a little bit about, you know, what's going on there and what the customer feedback has been like. We announced at, and immediately, immediately following AACR- Yeah ... we did, we did our targeted launch of the ViewRNA integration. Yeah ... and that's going really well. We haven't provided any more public disclosures on— Yeah ... our timing there, and I think we're gonna keep that close to the vest. Mm-hmm. I would just say more generally, as we look at customer buying behavior and what matters- Mm-hmm ... I would say, particularly for those high-volume, early-adopter users, I think it's more common that they leverage multiple platforms. Mm-hmm ... than waiting for one of us to, I would almost say, crack the Holy Grail of doing high-plex, high-quality multiomic. I think it's more likely that companies in this space really double down on their expertise. Yeah ... and continue to work on, on multiomic as a priority, but not something that I think is gonna be impactful in the immediate term. That is kind of how we think, not just of us, of others. Got it. Yeah. Got it. You know, the true multiomic co-detection effort, you know, that you guys have talked about in the past— Yeah ... you sort of de-emphasized it a little bit. Can you just talk through, you know, some of the technical and commercial challenges that sort of brought you to where you are today on, you know, perhaps focusing on other areas first, including, you know, the Thermo collaboration instead of, you know, your own true multiomic co-detection effort? Yeah, I think there's, I think there's two parts to that answer. Uh-huh. The part number one is, if you've got an install base of almost 1,300 instruments, what's the best way to leverage that? Is it RNA, or is it improving the margins on the antibodies you're selling and expanding into other areas? Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. I sort of signaled our answer. Yeah. That seems to be our priority. Mm. And then, you know, on the RNA side, in terms of our own higher plex RNA approach... Look, technically, what NanoString did, what 10x has done to bring those technologies to market, and the investments they put in— Mm-hmm. Not trivial. Right. Incredibly powerful, but not trivial. Right. You know, and the IP landscape is also not trivial. Right. We looked at all of that and said, "Look, it's probably better as a company to focus on something that's complementary and additive, versus straightly competitive and very difficult. Right. It was both a market and a financial decision. Got it. - and that was the backdrop. Got it. Makes sense. Yeah. You know, you've made significant progress in, in sort of making inroads into that clinical market with Acrivon and your OncoSignature assay. Yes. And then you've also got, you know, the partnerships with NeraCare and, and, and Shanghai KR Pharmtech. Can you just remind us of Akoya's roles in these partnerships? And, more importantly, give us a flavor about the opportunity funnel here, right? Both expanding work with, you know, people like Acrivon- Yeah ... who you already have a relationship with, and then the halo effect that you see from those early wins. Yeah, it's a really good question. Acrivon, to remind you, and I would encourage everybody to look at the data that they're gonna announce at ESMO next week. It's really the first time they've come out. Mm-hmm. I would just say we're gonna be-- we're really excited- Mm-hmm ... for their progress because it parlays into us. That partnership is one where we have the exclusive partnership to develop the companion diagnostic for their therapeutic. If approved, you must run the companion diagnostic on our platform. Their clinical trials are advancing very quickly, and if they do come on market, it would be our first companion diagnostic. That progress, and our pharma partners see that, they see our Breakthrough Device Designation, the Fast Track designation of the drug, our CLIA lab, our expertise to get reimbursement. Mm-hmm ... that really has lowered the bar and raised the confidence that we can do CDXs. When we bring the NeraCare asset for melanoma, early-stage melanoma patients that are high risk, post-surgery, of relapsing, and can you find those earlier and treat them earlier? Having that content, having that validated content on a platform that is going through CDX, it really has elevated our dialogue with those large pharma that are working in melanoma. That will be the next wave of CDXs that we likely close. Mm-hmm ... in addition to the antibody-drug conjugate market. I see ... which really necessitates multiplexing. It is really those three, as we look at our growing pipeline, that are very specific. It is getting Acrivon all the way through— Mm-hmm ... it's getting into early-stage melanoma, and then it's the antibody-drug conjugate. Those are the opportunities that are filling our pipeline quite quickly. I see. Does that answer your question? Yeah. No, of course. How are you thinking about sort of revenue contribution ramping from these, these partnerships, Brian? I mean, as you, you mentioned- Yeah ... you know, the ESMO data from Acrivon. Yeah. At what point does that get material? Hopefully, I can answer that explicitly after they reveal at ESMO. I think as we look at 2025, you know, we are not gonna assume- Uh-huh ... this revenue is gonna be contributory to a faster profitability. We've got to treat it as upside- Uh-huh ... because they're very binary events. But I do think it will, it does really begin to contribute as significant upside in 2025, and then it really begins to deliver, I think, in 2026. I think that's a fair assumption of where we have in mind. Yeah, we've certainly built—we've built the business to continue to execute on the RUO business as it stands in that clinical business we're investing in, certainly. Mm-hmm ... and that would be upside into the 2025, 2026. But we've set our cost structure margins to ensure that we get to that cash flow break even as the business stands, with those being upside as we move, you know, a couple of years out. Got it. Switching gears a little bit, Brian, to the instrument sort of weakness, can you just talk a little bit about, you know, your current visibility, and in terms of, you know, the pacing of orders, the size of the funnel, the conversion rate? Yeah. Have things started to stabilize and look a little bit on the up, or is it still a very low visibility environment? I would say that the sales cycle conversion rates. Mm-hmm ... and market dynamics are the same. There's interesting ebbs and flows that are happening. Mm-hmm ... you know, both geographically and in sub-market segments of academia and pharma. There is a lot of dynamics there that we can talk about. Just in general, is capital equipment getting easier or harder? It is the same degree of difficulty. Got it. Yeah. Got it. And maybe just in terms of the composition of your current pipeline, how does it sort of divvy up between pharma, academic, and CRO customers? I'll speak historically. Sure ... that will give you a sense. Yeah. Academia, particularly in the U.S. market, has generally been the strongest. Mm-hmm. And pharma has gone through some challenges. Mm-hmm. What we've seen is, we've seen that start to shift a little, where there's, you know, some growing headwinds in academia, perhaps. We're seeing, we're seeing growing strength in pharma, and I don't know if that's unique to us. Mm-hmm. I've met with a lot of large pharma recently. Mm-hmm. Their internal pathology and histology groups are really sort of embracing using the cycler for high-plex discovery and then going to the HT. Mm-hmm ... for sort of routine use across multiple programs. So our pharma is looking stronger, but there's also some interesting regional dynamics where, you know, the Americas were sort of carrying the water and EMEA was struggling, and now we're seeing a little bit more strength in EMEA. Anyway, like, when I say ebbs and flows- Right, right ... those are some of the things that are happening. Got it. What does the pricing environment look like at the moment, Brian? I mean, some of your peers are, you know, they, they're looking at, you know, leasing, et cetera. Mm-hmm. ... anything to really reduce that upfront spending requirement for customers. I think in the beginning of the year, we talked about, you know, try it before you buy it, offers going around, et cetera. Yeah. I... It sounded like that got a little bit better, you know, when we touched base after the second quarter. Just give us a state of the union on instrument pricing as it relates to you guys. Yeah. ASPs have been steady. It's pricing is really binary. Mm-hmm. You can either get the money, or you can't get the money. Okay. So, and it's really not been about pricing. In terms of, you know, creative mechanisms like leasing, you know, we see some of that, although it's in the current interest rate environment, that's kind of hard. And we do some, you know, try it before you buy it. You know, not so much as we talked about earlier in the year from a competitive standpoint, but just because now when you get to the sort of next phase of buyers— Mm-hmm ... they have a, an expectation to prove it, whether that's through a publication- Right ... or sending that to a core lab to get it done. Mm-hmm. In very select cases, you just put a box in there and have a very well-defined use case scenario that you sort of stick and move. That is how I would characterize sort of pricing. Got it ... and deal creativity. Got it. And then quickly on the 2.0 rollout, are you approaching sort of completion essentially at this stage? Yeah, you sort of get asymptotic. Fair enough. We're probably kind of two thirds, three quarters of the way through- Okay ... in terms of the 2.0 upgrades across both platforms. Got it. Yeah. And you expect to be done by some point next year, is that fair, or? I think so. On the, on the Pheno Cycler side, you've got this dynamic of people upgrading to the Fusion, where they- Yeah ... still have the old systems. You know, some people are sort of satisfied with the current throughput of the— Mm ... of the 1.0. Mm-hmm. Will we get to 100%? Probably not, but- Got it ... you know, 85, low 90s, somewhere in there. Yeah, fair enough. Yeah. And then last question on the hardware, and we'll move to the end markets. You know, you undertook a pretty significant restructuring, you know, right at the same time as, you know, Lunaphore and NanoString ended up with larger companies. Yeah. How are you making sure you don't let up on the, on the commercial intensity? And also just on any, any sort of sales force chart. Yeah, it's, it's you have to be really delicate with the risks. We didn't touch the commercial teams, the direct selling teams a ton. Mm-hmm. We did some reorganization in North America to optimize those teams, so we really tried to sort of preserve those commercial channels. Mm-hmm. I think that was most important. And what's also most important is you- is, is we need to make sure that our product strategy, as we discussed earlier, is, is optimized for what we're good at, which is leverage your install base, continue to plex protein and drive clinical. And as we look at some of those large caps that are getting in- Yeah ... they're still really in adjacent markets. Right. Yeah. Got it. Switching to end markets, let's start with biopharma. First, I mean, how much is your exposure here? I mean, can you just break it down between large cap pharma versus biotech? So the exposure, I'd say pharma is probably overall 30%-35%. Okay. It's heavily biased on the HT system. Right. So you've got academia, maybe it's half or so, biopharma- Mm-hmm ... you know, 30-35% or so, and then, you know, CROs and government is kind of the rest. Okay. Our exposure, and then smaller biopharma, that's never been a big part of our business. Got it. It's usually been sort of the larger caps that are leveraging the platform across multiple parts of their portfolio. Got it. Yeah. So just to follow up on that, I mean, there's been, you know, some chatter about weakness among the large cap pharma sort of customer base. Yeah. Renewed concerns around IRA or patent cliffs perhaps are being, you know- Yeah ... pointed to as potential reasons. Yeah. Are you seeing any of that in your customer conversations? So it- ... in that July, August timeframe? I don't know about July, August, but it's kind of a mixed bag. There's some large pharma that have gone through significant restructuring. Yep ... and that's impacted to some extent, some programs. More generally speaking, the IRA impact for us, what we've seen, is the growth in the antibody-drug conjugate work. Mm. That's becoming a really active part of our work with biopharma to build a multiplex panel. Mm-hmm ... that, that, on the HT system, that is the target of the payload delivery, it's the same target of probably a, a checkpoint inhibitor to go with it. We've actually seen the ADC stuff as part of the Inflation Reduction Act and the expansion of ADCs. Because of that, that's actually helped a little bit in some of the large cap biopharma. Got it. Yeah. And on the, on the CRO side, I know you kind of like noted particular weakness- Yeah ... among the CROs, last quarter. Can you just elaborate on that? Was this sort of a sudden trend driven by the IRA situation and then just getting less work from pharma, or is something else going on? More importantly, do you anticipate that this persists into the second half of the year as well? It happened quickly. I mean, there was... I, and we just look at our pull through, our reagent revenue and, and instrument sales and CROs, and it drops pretty quickly. Mm-hmm. Now, that was countered by seeing the growth in the reagent revenue in the biopharma side. Some of this narrative of stuff moving internally- Mm ... is real. Mm. Mm. I'll also tell you this, I think there was a lot of trying to be established CROs that were buying instruments and buying technology and getting into the market. I see. We saw some attrition. I see ... of a non-trivial number of CROs kind of go out of business. I see. I think longer term, I think the longer term impact is digested. Okay. Yeah. Fair enough. Yeah. Academic and government, you know, it's an important customer base for you guys. Can you just talk about the trends there and anything different about what you're seeing on the U.S. side with the NIH budgets versus the horizon cuts that are coming up on defense spending? You know, I was talking to Frank over at Bruker. Yeah This morning, and he was talking about this shift in dollars towards, you know, spatial, which helps offset the muted sort of budget growth on the academic side. There was a shift in dollars towards spatial in some of the European funding groups. It's interesting, though, that shift in dollars was to capital historically. Now, it's to large scale atlasing projects. Mm-hmm ... where they're going across large cohorts. Mm-hmm ... and they're building large scale databases. So they're actually funding more projects and less instruments. Hmm. Those are some of the significant tenders that we've been winning. Okay. And we'll talk more about in the, in the future. I think that's a really interesting trend for the market. It's 'cause it's the same thing that we saw in the array market and the sequencing market, these large, multinational institutional projects. Mm-hmm ... that create sort of database-level information. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm ... those become really important catalysts for adoption. I see. Yeah. Got it. Switching to China. Yeah. You know, it's about, I think it's, what is it? About 12% of your revenue, or so somewhere there about? Yeah. Mm-hmm. Got it. Johnny, just to set the stage a little bit, what's your academic biopharma CRO mix in China? And then, what is your go-to-market strategy in the region? I- I'll-- we don't really, we don't break that down too much in China, but there, there's been, I think, no real change to the go-to-market strategy in China. Okay ... because there's not been a lot. Mm-hmm. Other than the partnership with Shanghai KR Pharmtech, where we have the NMPA approval. Mm-hmm. That again, that's longer term, 'cause that approval process is sort of the opposite of what we do now in the U.S. Mm-hmm. Class II approval first, and then you get the clinical- Sure ... assay, validated. I don't know if you want to add anything. No, I think that's a good view. You know, we've seen China's generally been stable for us. Mm-hmm. We've seen, you know, it's been a good contributor for us, but again, we don't break down a lot of those details, we haven't shared publicly. Maybe just at a qualitative level, Johnny, is it sort of in the same zip code as your overall end market mix, or does it vary significantly? Yeah. Are you overindexed to academic or- I think getting to Brian's point, it's really through that, you know, we've got some primary agreements that drive the majority, but I don't know that it's, it's- I see. Probably close to what we see. I see. Yeah. Fair enough. And then, any sort of, like, shift in sentiment there? Are you starting to see funnel activity, you know, pick up ahead of the stimulus dispersal? When you talk to our team, they're doing a lot of proposals. Mm-hmm. I think it's... I went in this morning at Cytek, I think his- Yeah answer was right, that it's hard to predict when that's gonna flow through and to what extent, but there's certainly been a lot of activity in terms of, you know, your effective RFPs or tenders. Yeah. Got it. Yeah. Got it. All right, so switching to, you know, bringing reagent manufacturing in-house, Brian, that you talked about earlier. Yeah ... that is now fully operational. Yeah. Have you recovered in terms of market awareness related to reagent availability? And have you managed to recoup some of those lost instrument orders, especially those institutional referrals that, that sort of— Yeah ... you lost earlier in the year? Yeah, those are back in the funnel. I think in terms of the market understanding and awareness that that transition is complete, yeah, we've been proactive in that regard. Mm-hmm. I think Johnny can speak to, you know, what that means overall for our financial health. Yeah, I mean, we are reaping the benefits of what we hoped from a gross margin perspective. Yeah ... and starting to really drive efficiencies on, especially manufacturing reagents and in-house or the conjugating in-house. Mm-hmm. It is also providing benefits. You know, we spoke a little bit to some of the areas of reductions that we were able to do this year. Some of those came as a natural result of the efficiency in the house. Some of our customer support and some of the efforts that, when you've got a diversified chain that you're trying to manage— Yeah ... once you bring it in-house, you actually have found efficiencies that allow you to reduce costs where you need to. We're seeing it as a positive from execution on that Q1 effort. To Brian's point, now, as we've been able to get that word out really to our customers, to ensure they're comfortable that reagents are there and available. Mm-hmm ... it's, we've seen it as a positive. Got it. Brian, on the restructuring, you know, 35%, you know, since the end of 2023, that's, that's not a trivial amount of employees. I guess my question is: What gets operationally sort of de-emphasized as a result of that? Because you said that the commercial channel is still intact. Yeah. Where do you see the... So it's really around-- it's about a decision between optimizing for profitability- Mm-hmm ... to oversimplify or just simplify— Yeah ... versus optimizing for growth. Right. That is really what it comes down to. Right. You know, we could continue to forward invest in new instruments. Mm-hmm ... be really proactive, investing in building out a large menu of content. Mm-hmm ... versus sort of walking away there with smaller production builds. Mm-hmm ... which is something we can do now. Smaller production builds, limited launch. Mm-hmm ... and do that in a more deliberative fashion. It's really a trade-off between the time of your ROI. I would add that we grew very fast out of the IPO, intentionally. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Because we still had—we had this mindset of it was about growth. Right. We sort of necessarily, as a byproduct, had some inefficiencies that we were able to capitalize on, but it's not all efficiency gains. You're right, you've gotta make some choices, and the choices are: what kind of growth are we looking at in 2025, versus an environment where you can forward invest and grow? That's the trade. Fair enough. Yeah. Fair enough. I'll get to 2025. Before we do that, I want to ask you guys about your degree of confidence in the fourth quarter step up that's embedded in this year's guide, including the milestone timing. Yeah. We feel good about the milestone timing, the step up. You know, you look at the elongation of sales cycle and a lot of the picked up activity we had in Q1 and Q2. Mm-hmm ... to drive, to drive pipeline expansion, so we're feeling good about that walk. The milestones are, the clinical milestones that were, that were pushed are pretty, are locked in. Got it. Yeah. Got it. And then what about, just pull-through trends? I mean, are you expecting sort of flattish pull-through trends with a pickup in fourth quarter? Is that the right sort of framework to use for both the PhenoCycler and the HT? Yeah, I think as we look at pull-through, I mean, if you just reflect on our quarterly overall reagent revenue historically. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm ... just going back a couple of years, mid three per quarter, at mid four, 5.5, and now we're kind of at seven. It kind of walks in step function. Again, it's sort of a nonlinear walk. Right. I think it's more like on half years, as we get into first half of 2025, is that cycler pull-through going to 55-64? Mm-hmm. That's kind of directionally how we look at that. Yeah, I don't know that any one quarter—I wouldn't look to any one quarter and see movements in, in pull-through. We really try to see it kind of, as Brian said, sort of half year or full year steps, you really... Because by the time you get the instruments deployed, up and running, and you start to see that pull-through measured, you start to see it in, in broader— Yeah ...windows, kind of six months to- Got it. Fair enough. As we think about your cash flow and EBITDA breakeven goal, you know, by year-end- Yeah ... does that assume that the milestones come through? If, if for whatever reason there's a push-out, I don't know, by a couple of weeks into the first quarter, would it be sort of lead- would that lead to a push-out of, of those targets? Yeah, I mean, our guide as it stands currently and the impact of the cost efforts we've taken through the year. Yep ... and our view of gross margin, really get us to that exiting the year, starting to see that break even on cash flow from ops. Mm-hmm. And then EBITDA, as well. The things that would move that being working capital, right? That's why adjusted EBITDA is a bit of a, a better measure sometimes. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm ... because you don't have the impact of working capital. Mm-hmm. If you have receivables or inventory that shift by a million or two, you miss your number. Right. Right? Right. Really, we like that adjusted EBITDA becomes a meaningful measure because it's truly this top line, our stable margins, and then we have a good view of OpEx that we've been able to sort of get visibility to. We can see that adjusted EBITDA. Fair enough. And Johnny, any, any sort of puts and takes to keep in mind as we look to 2025? I mean, obviously, you've got, you know, easier comps from this year, but then, you know, we're not gonna wake up in a fully recovered world on January first either. Yeah. Just walk us through that. Yeah, I mean, obviously, we haven't spoken to '25 specifically, but it's- I think a lot of the trends continue, right? Yeah. We'll continue to see that move up as we're seeing in the back half of this year. Mm-hmm. You know, first half we know was, was a tough one. Second half, we see better. Really, our goal in the next year is continue to have a stable business with, with costs under control, such that we really start to leverage that, that cash position. Yeah ... to start seeing. Yeah ... that taking that exiting break even to really kind of have that be a positive moving forward. Right. Got it. Hopefully we layer up, we, you know, the aim is to layer onto that, the clinical upside. Right. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. You really, you really begin to outperform. Fair enough. And Brian, lastly, I mean, on the balance sheet, you know, you talked about, I think it was $48 million in cash at the end of 2Q. Talk to us about your efforts to just shore up the balance sheet. I think you, you alluded to both, you know, debt as well as strategics- Yeah ... as being part of the frame of reference at the end of the second quarter. When can we see some news on that front? Yeah, I mean, you can speak to that on our cash preservation efforts and the debt status. Yeah. I mean, we've got our debt partner and our... The amortization of that, or the IO, goes to the end of 2025. Mm-hmm. And that's why 2025 is an important year as we crest that cash flow break even. Mm-hmm ... because then we have the ability to start generating cash. Mm-hmm ... that allows us to pay down that debt as needed in the out years. We see that, you know, the cash that we have is what we need to execute on our current strategy. Again, to Brian's point, as those clinical opportunities are funded— Mm-hmm ... you know, in the next year and beyond. Mm-hmm ... it's, it's, again, further starts to drive that cash, cash towards positivity. Yeah. Got it. Perfect. Brian, just quickly to close, what's the most important thing or two you want to highlight to folks as we head into 2025? I think, I think it's two things. I think we are, we are returning to growth on the RUO business. Mm-hmm. We give, and I don't mean this pejoratively, we give a lot of lip service to the clinical- Mm-hmm ... part. Mm-hmm. Ultimately, what's gonna make this company not a $2 and change stock, but a $20 stock, is not just getting to profitability, but really crossing the line and becoming a true companion diagnostic company. That is going to happen, and that's something that we've got growing confidence in. I think as people value and look to value Akoya, I think that's probably the number one thing that we need to deliver on in addition to the bottom line. Got it. Great place to leave it at, so thank you so much, guys, for joining me. I appreciate it. Thanks, sir. Thank you.