We'll kind of level set and Can add 27 if you want. Yeah. First of all, I think most people here recognize we'll make forward-looking statements, so feel free to take a look at our 10-Q for risk factors. We've been working hard for a while on developing two different, important, what we think could be important platforms. One is what we call our hypoimmune platform, and that has the goal of hiding allogeneic cells from immune recognition, and it gives us the chance to really scale the use of cell therapy broadly. Our primary asset has been this drug we call SC451, which is in development for people with type 1 diabetes. Our goal is very simple. It's a functional cure. It is one injection of cells that will lead to normal blood sugars or euglycemia, with no immunosuppression for life for these patients. We can go into why that might work as we chat. But we have made a lot of progress. We've shown that the technology works in a different setting, which was cadaveric-derived islets, which is less scalable, so we really want to develop the real drug. We're very close to being able to figure this out. We've been working hard this year on an IND, and hopefully beginning our clinical trial. Happy to say that so far so good. There are three really important parts of getting an IND ready. One is your clinical package, and that is both trial design and also how you're really going to deliver this medicine to patients. It's a real operational Rubicon to get this type of a therapy to patients. I think we should feel really confident around our ability to move forward there. Second is a non-clinical or preclinical package, which includes things like GLP toxicology studies and biodistribution and efficacy, and in the case of this, genomics and other things. I think that is now more or less in the rearview mirror. We have preliminary results across the board, and we do not have every final report, but I think people can feel pretty good that that is not going to end up being an impediment to us moving forward. The third is to both lock down a manufacturing process and then to transfer it, along with all your assays and supply chain and things into a GMP manufacturing facility. We have made real progress along that, and we are in the final throes of transferring it in the process or and doing the types of runs you need to kind of validate that this works in that site. We are not out of the woods yet, but it certainly seems like we are getting very close, and that we will be in a place to start this study soon. Once that happens to go into kind of data flow, right. Because that was part of your answer. I do think that clearing an IND in a complex medicine like this is not a trivial endeavor and probably has some meaningful value. We then will be looking really on a couple of things clinically. One, does what we have seen before, which is this platform seems to work, really translate into this setting. What we mean by that is can we transplant these gene-modified stem cell-derived islets into the muscle of a patient and see them survive and really function over time, right. The most important part of that is evading immune detection. We should know that within about a month, right. We view that as being super important, because it will tell you that this thing is kind of inevitable, right. Most of the risk is in that. I do not know most of the value is in that. You guys decide where you are going to place value. Once we have done that, then you want to see, okay, do these cells really work as well as you hope they do, and do you have the medicine that you want, right. That could be dose and things like that. There what you want to see is a person have normal sugars, blood sugars, more or less, with no insulin and no immunosuppression. What we have seen in the field is that that generally takes a few months longer to understand, and so we will be watchful for that. Then the third is how consistent are these results. Is this happening every time, more or less. Is it happening most of the time. Some of the time. That will take a little bit longer, but I think we will learn all of those things through 2027. We also are moving forward into phase I with a process that is good enough for phase I, which we can talk about what that means more in a bit. But it is not really yet at a scale that we are ready for commercial. I think next year we have a real chance, we are making a lot of progress to be able to tell you if that is going to be something that slows us down in moving towards a registration study or if we are ready to go. Those are kind of really important things with that. Our second platform is an ability to deliver genetic payloads to cells in vivo. I think you recognize, apologies, you can more or less do anything you want to a cell and its genome in a Petri dish. The hard part is doing this inside the body, so we've been focused on delivery for a while. We have a technology we call fusogens, which allows for cell-specific delivery. We're making an in vivo CAR T cell with this. We've made some fundamental assumptions along the way that we think will lead to a better, safer, and more durable effect with this therapy. It's complicated our path forward, which just means we've fallen a little bit behind some people who are ahead of us, but we think we have a chance to really have a best-in-class medicine, and we could again talk about what that means. But I think in animals, that's kind of been true, right? Now we need to show that in humans. The first drug is a drug we call SG293, and it delivers a genetic payload that in vivo or inside the body makes CD19 targeted CAR T cells. We're initially going to go after this in cancer and safety profile looks good and things, we may go after autoimmune diseases after that. Our goal had been to start that study about now. We're doing this in China through an IIT. Things got a little bit more complicated over the past several months. It's not a matter of if it's going to happen, it's a matter of when. The other day, we kind of let people know this might take us into 2027 to get our data, first half 2027. It's disappointing to us, but it's not the end of the world. Behind that, we have another BCMA-targeted CAR T-cell that we can develop with the in vivo technology, assuming this works. I think there's a lot of other things behind that. So that's a little bit about the technologies we have and what we'll see over the next, call it 6 - 12 months. That's great. So that's a lot to dig into. Maybe we start, of course, with the T1D, the type 1 diabetes program. As you mentioned, you're getting the technology transferred to a GMP facility, it's working towards that. I think in the past we've talked about release assays and maybe the order and the requirements that goes within that, given the manufacturing process here. Can you maybe share a little bit about if that's what you're still working on? Has FDA given you a clear sort of requirement on that aspect? Well, it's a complicated question in a way. So one, whenever you're transferring in technology, as said, you're transferring in supply chain, right? You're transferring in manufacturing, the process itself and making the drug, and then you transfer in the assays, right? All of those things need to be done. Really to kind of put the pin on being done, you really want to kind of validate your assays with product that have been made inside that facility. So give us a bit, that's probably one of the log poles, the last things to get done. But generally, I think we're confident that the assays have been transferred and are in good shape. Do we have what the FDA requires for release and things? I think we have general alignment with regulators in multiple parts of the world around what we need to do to release this drug. Do we know for sure that they won't ask us to do something else? We don't. I think some of that is always dependent upon their final review and reviewing our clinical protocol and the non-clinical talks and package and all those things. But I think we feel like we're in good shape of knowing what we need to do and being able to do it to make this drug and release it and test it in people. Got it. So you have a great feel for what's required to get you over the IND filing. We believe we do. Okay. That's great. Yeah. When you think about the FDA, some of the leadership changes that have happened recently, you spend a lot of time discussing this with the regulators. Have there been any shift with the agency's enthusiasm for really focusing on advancing Type 1 diabetes with the leadership changes, or has that enthusiasm remained intact? I don't think we know the answer to that question. I do think what we know is that we were fortunate to have in the last FDA commissioner, someone who was an islet transplant surgeon and who understood the profound unmet need that these patients faced, the lack of options that you really have in Type 1 diabetes, and the impact that that disease has on patients over time. Our interactions are with day-to-day regulators and I think that they remain very focused on doing the right thing for this patient population as well. I don't think that we should expect that there's any real change. But you never really know how the world will evolve. Sure. I think that if you look around the world, there's a clear understanding of the unmet need in this space in a way that I find very different from things that I've been involved with in the past. Countries and regulators reach out to us, not vice versa. That's not always true, but that has happened. So we believe we have many viable paths forward to develop this drug and that you have a patient population that's 10 million people, right? It's an extraordinarily large patient population spread across multiple geographies in the world. That both presents opportunity and complexity, right? Because different regulators may want different things and some of those things maybe help us along the way and allow us to navigate forward in a safe and urgent way. Other things may force us to take a bit more time. And just a bit of a housekeeping question. When you file the IND and when the IND is accepted, do you plan to disclose both to the street? It's very clear to us based upon what people have said to us that IND acceptance is something that they would view as material outcome for the company. Yeah. Whether or not it ends up being that the IND having been filed, that just feels like we could get you guys death by a thousand cuts, with disclosing everything we do. But if it ends up being something that we think we need to do because we view it as material at the time, we'll certainly do it. Okay. All right. Understood. Then, you talked about how you can get to proof of concept pretty quickly, 30 days after that first patient's dose, but how- Potentially. The first patient Potentially. may not graft, you may have other things, but I think potentially, yeah. Sure. In theory. How quickly do you think you could initiate that first in-human study after you confirm IND acceptance? I don't think we want to get into kind of like day-by-day blows around this. I don't think that'll be helpful for people. I do think that what is useful for people to recognize is that we have done a lot of work beforehand that puts us in a good position, but you never know till you get there, to move from IND clearance to rapidly being able to dose the first patient. There are a whole bunch of things that have to happen with that, though, right? You get the IND clearance, IRBs need to get approved, you need to get clinical contracts signed. All those things have to happen with the final clinical protocol, right? You then need to have finish all the screening, and of course, there needs to be drug product that's brought to the site, and it's kind of finally released for that patient. And so that may happen relatively quickly. It may take us more time than we anticipate, but I don't think this is going to be one of those things that takes quarters, which many trials do. Okay. So perhaps a little bit more rapid than the average- I think we can- trials be a lot more rapid than the average, but I don't think we know yet, right? Fair. It's good to be cautious. Yeah. You mentioned the finalized clinical trial protocol. You need that in hand to start the study, obviously. Is that finalized or near finalized in how you have designed the study? We like to think it's finalized. Okay. You have to have final approval from regulators to- Pending that. Yeah. Okay. Pending that, from your perspective, unless they ask for something else, the study is designed. It is done, ready to roll. But again, they reserve the right to ask for a lot of things, right? Sometimes they do. Yeah. You've talked about this before. You have maybe investigators lined up with interest, sites that are already sort of outlined Yep that you're targeting. All of that is pretty set. The sites are chosen. They are. It's done. That is done. There's a lot that needs to be done. If you just think through training around this, you send the drug somewhere as live cells, and first of all, to send it's in a media to keep it alive. You wouldn't want to put all that into the muscle of a patient, right? First of all, live cells have to be accepted. They have to be held in the right way because you kind of want them to die. They need to be then processed, and they need to be injected into the patient. All of that is something that you would not want to just spring upon a site overnight. We've done a lot of work on training on that, and we will continue to train sites around it. That's something that we very early felt the need to identify and finalize the sites that we intend to use so that we could maximize the probability that we have a safe and effective delivery of these cells. And you disclosed a partnership with the Mayo Clinic in the spring, I believe. Because you mentioned training your sites. Is that something that the Mayo Clinic, with its expertise in running clinical trials, could you standardize that with them, the training for administering this drug? Yeah. Actually, it's been a really productive collaboration, and thrilled we did it. And you're right in early on, that's a lot of what we've spent time focused on with them. I kind of think of that like there's this black box that occurs from the time the drug leaves our hands until the time that the patient leaves the hospital. We need to make sure it is done as well, as repeatably, and as safely as possible. And really, it's been wonderful to work with them, really hand in glove to kind of work our way through some of that. And there have been things that we've identified that probably increase our probability of success by working with them, and that's something that's very valuable to us. Every 1% increase in probability of success is very valuable. Yeah, for sure. Sure. Then when you think about the dose that you'll need to drive insulin independence, do you think you have a great feel for what that dose is, or is there going to be some dose optimization built into that phase I study? I think you always want to know a little bit more about dose. I think we know some things, right? Those of us who don't have diabetes probably have, let's just say 1 billion islet cells. We know that adults lose about 50%-60% of their islet cells. Again, you can translate this into beta cells in a second if you wanted to. You begin to manifest diabetes. You probably need to have some number, like 400 or 500 million cells, that engraft and function in order to get there to be insulin independent. There are a number of variables in there. One is what percentage of those cells actually engraft, right? We're going into a relatively less studied site, which is intramuscular. We believe that that will be better. We have animal data to suggest that will be better, but we don't know for sure that those engraftment rates will be higher than going into the portal vein, which has been more the industry standard. Or I should say the field standard. The second is, we don't know for sure how potent our cells are, right? Might they be a little bit different, produce a little more insulin or a little less insulin? We will want to make sure that we look at dose a little bit. I think we have a general sense of where we need to be, though. It's not like we could talk about the fusogens where I think we could be logarithmically off. Here, we don't want to overdose patients. I don't think it would be a toxicity issue. Again, we all have many more cells than we're going to put in. One of the requirements of this is that you make glucose sensitive insulin secretion, meaning that if glucose is low, you don't secrete insulin, right? If glucose is high, you do. The dosing self-titrates itself anyway. We'll almost certainly, given the size of the unmet need with millions and millions of people, be capacity constrained for years. If we're giving a patient 2X the number of doses they need, we're only helping 50% of the number of patients we could, right? We do want to make sure we understand the dose. Right. Exactly. Yeah. That's a great segue on manufacturing. When you think about the capacity that you have today with the process that you have, where you think you need to be for a registration study versus ideally where you'll be commercialization, how should we think about what that capacity looks like across from now until several years- Yeah. into the future? I kind of think of this, I think we've touched, about this in three different periods. There's good enough for phase I. That's what we do today. And just barely, right? To be clear, I think that some of the phase I enrollment will be paced by how quickly we release drug product. Number two is good enough for early commercialization, and early commercialization is going to be the exact same process that you use for your registration study, right? Maybe that's going to be necessary to really lock down. The third will be good enough for the long run. In the long run, you're looking at, again, if you treat 100,000 people per year, you're only cutting the global growth rate from 5% to 4%, right? There's just a lot of work we have to do to get to the numbers that could get to something like that. There are always two things to think about. One is, you can make more batches per run or scale up the process, and that's really often what we're dealing with here is a science problem and we're really in that phase. There's then make more batches, right? That's more of a capital problem, and that's kind of scaling out. We're not yet to that place. What we're really working on right now is ensuring we have the scale up, the batches per run, that is adequate to really give us a very robust and successful launch. Of course, that does also include a commercially viable cost of goods, right? We can't have this cost more than a patient's able to pay. We have to make sure we're working on both of those things, which is a viable commercial cost of goods as well as a viable number. But I think we can do that. In very short order, we've made a lot of progress on that. We're not done, to be clear, but we've made a lot of progress on that. To get to the kind of the third period, which is to be able to treat tens and tens of thousands of people a year, we have work to do still. That we haven't even really begun. But we've begun the other, and I'd say we've made more progress more rapidly than we might have anticipated six months ago or something. When you look at the overall iPSC field, I think everybody is trying to figure out how to scale. Are there learnings around the field, or is this all proprietary per each company right now because there is just a competitiveness aspect? I think it remains pretty proprietary. I am not saying that there are not things that are becoming better known, and so much of this is likely going to be solved by technologies that other companies develop that might be used. Different types of bioreactors or things. Those things are not proprietary and are probably shared. Some of them are, but everything is going to always be bespoke anyway. These cell lines are fickle. They are fickle. When we went through, just as an example, a research grade of our cell line to the GMP grade, it was not totally different, but it is a little different. You have to change a recipe just a hair. Lessons, even if you shared them, may not be applicable across this. The simple way to think about this is biologic manufacturing has been scaled over several decades and has been done very well. It was very difficult in the 1990s, and it is not much different than a pill today. The challenge of it was trying to figure out how do you create a kind of a metabolic milieu or an environment where these cells can live and thrive? They are pumping out protein or whatever they are doing. We need to do that. We need our cells to do that and survive. At the same time, we need to rapidly change the environment so that we can change the cell signaling so they go from pluripotent stem cell to endoderm, ectoderm, mesoderm next. Then you go down that path to what we are trying to make, which is islet cells. Those two things can be in juxtaposition to each other, right? Stable metabolic milieu versus rapidly changing your environment. That is ultimately, I think, the challenge that everybody has to grapple with. But you believe it's solvable. Like we're going to get to, at some point, that more robust commercial scale, the third tier that you're discussing. I believe it's 100% solvable. If you believe it's solvable is you can make thousands and thousands of doses, 100%. I presume it's solvable at making millions of doses at some point, right? I don't think you should expect that to be in 2026, right? All science challenges take time to solve. Yeah, fair enough. I think the potential of this type of therapy is quite clear and well understood, so rooting for you to get there. Well, I hope it's well I think it's sometimes hard to put your arms around how large the opportunity is. One of the ways I've kind of again just tried to frame it is, I mentioned this earlier, there are 10 million people, more or less, with type 1 diabetes, and it continues to grow at a pretty robust rate globally. So there are about 500,000 new people a year. So if this works perfectly, right? It works in 100% of people with one injection, and they never need another therapy for life. We scale this, we make 100,000 doses per year. We will take the global growth rate from 5% to 4%. If you just launch this in the United States, you would take, it's called 1.5 million - 2 million people in the United States. There are around 70,000 - 80,000 new people diagnosed every year in the United States. You would barely cut into the new incidence pool again, right? It will at least get to go and shrink the market a little bit. The prevalence pool will be treated. It will take a long time, it will take real advances in the technology, and no one company is going to win this, right? It is one of those things when you say, is there more pre-competitive sharing around manufacturing? There probably should be, just because there is space for. No one company can own something this big, right? It will take multiple players to really get to it. Now, it may turn out we are wrong, and this only works in a fraction of the people who have the disease, and then it is a bit more of a digestible challenge for the near term. We are optimistic that it will work in most people. I guess, is there anything else about the opportunity that you think the Street is underappreciating, or anything else you want to emphasize before I move on to spend a little bit of time on fusogens? I think it is often hard to get your arms around. This is a field that has, I think, a patient population and families that have the kind of passion and impact of some of these orphan diseases. Sometimes it gets kind of put into that orphan disease camp in people's heads. It is a very, very large market, and it is very large unmet need. That, again, it presents both opportunity and challenges for us. I think that that portion of it is sometimes difficult for people to get their arm around. The second is, I think sometimes people overestimate the impact that the current standard of care has provided for patients. It is wonderful. Until 1923, getting type 1 diabetes was a death sentence within months, right? There have been, over the course of, particularly the last 20 years, superb advances in glucose monitoring, types of insulin pumps. But at the end of the day, if you get the best possible care in the United States, you face a lifespan that is somewhere between 7-10 years less than expected. To put that into perspective, if you're a 22-year-old woman, that is the same thing as if you got diagnosed with HIV or breast cancer, right? I think sometimes the impact of this disease on the daily lives of patients and the impact long term on not only their quality of life, but also their mortality is grossly underestimated. That is something that I think gives us an opportunity to do something pretty special. Actually, just thought of a question. When you think about the opportunity, obviously you're going after adults first. When and if can you go after the pediatric population as well? As soon as I think we're comfortable with the safety profile. I think it may be very quick to move to something like 16 plus. Sure. Then might be not that long to move to 12 plus. But again, I think we have to get comfortable. We're giving gene-modified stem cell-derived cells- Right into people who otherwise would live for decades, right, most likely. Some people die of severe hypoglycemia or something, but most people live for decades. So expanding that population beyond people who, one, can give their own informed consent is something we have to kind of think through, right? And two, to people who will just live a lot longer. That's where your greatest impact will be ultimately is giving it to young people, right? Because that's so we can cut off the macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 1 diabetes before they ever happen. You know they reverse somewhat with normalizing glucose. That's been shown in islet transplants. But preventing it from ever happening is still way better. And so we'll get there. It probably is not next year, but it's not much further than that away to start nibbling away at that population. Got it. Okay. Let's switch gears and focus a little bit on the fusogen pipeline. You mentioned that you were planning a China IIT. There has been a little bit of turmoil there, but you said it's going to happen, it's just going to be perhaps delayed. What do you need to do to make that study initiate? I'd say a couple things. One, the way that it's going is things that we would kind of, I might call rubber stamps have become signatures. Sure. That just takes time, right? We're also working to ensure that if some of those things don't become signatures, that doesn't have a material delay to the program. But it will happen. In the middle of it's a little bit frustrating. But we'll get to the other side of this. This is a drug that has been very well tested in the preclinical setting, right? We have probably done more non-human primate studies than we should admit. And we have, because we've just been really trying to ensure that we are delivering something that can be effective and safe in people. Not ensure. Maximize the probability, and you can never ensure. And we have a very robust non-clinical package. We've made the drug, it's ready to go, and so it will happen. Okay. There's been a lot of focus on safety, I think, for- Yeah. across CAR T, all modalities really at this point, and particularly in China. I guess when you're thinking about the phase I design, how are you thinking about dosing to start to really ensure that there isn't the major safety effect that could derail the program? Well, first of all, when you're thinking through safety has been something that we have designed into the program from the get-go, right? There are a number of differences with this drug versus, I'd say it's kind of the standard way that in vivo CAR T cells have been made to date. Number one is we have this, we believe from the get-go that true cell specificity in delivery is super important. I think others would say that actually the most important thing is just getting enough signal into their target cells. I think it's reasonable, right? It's a reasonable debate. But with that, we think it means less off target, less immunogenicity, and hopefully more manufacturability, because it just turns out T cells are rare, right? Number two is we really work to dissociate the portal of entry, which for most of these virus-like particles is CD3 from activating the T cell, right? Because that portal event, when you bind CD3, these T cells get very activated, and I'll come back to what the potential implications of this may be. But that can both lead to a robust early immune response, which can be toxic. It also can exhaust these cells, which may deplete your efficacy. First of all, it goes down to how you design the program. We've done some other things like remove the CAR from the cell surface or the VLP surface, right? It's actually always going to be a way these producer cells are made. When you make a virus-like particle, you could have CAR, that can lead to delivery to off-target cells, in particular, some of your maybe even cancer cells and things you may not want to be. That is both an immunogenicity problem, and it may also be a broader safety issue. Again, start with safety and how you design it. Number two is start with safety and how we monitor and what we do. You know that there are kind of four CAR T associated toxicities to worry about. One is specific for in vivo CAR T cells, and that is this kind of peri-infusion toxicity that we have seen in the field. In fact, some patients have almost died from it, right? Now patients are broadly getting high dose steroids before treatment to stop. We think because, and what we have seen in animals, Sana is very well tolerated. We have had a little bit of fever, it can be taken care of with a TYLENOL, right? In non-human primates. We will come back to how we start dosing. But the first thing is, again, how you design. Hopefully, we will have less peri-infusion toxicity. CRS and ICANS are cytokine release syndrome and the severe neurotoxicity that are seen here, again, are usually associated with activated CAR T cells when you put this product in. I would never claim we are not going to have those things. I think these are related to the drug mechanism. But by having less activated cells at the outset, maybe we are able to reduce that. The fourth is one that people have not paid enough attention to, but I think some of the challenges in the autoimmune space recently have driven in, which is this kind of immune effector cell-associated hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis-like syndrome. That has been present for this class of drugs for as long as they have been around. I think it was underappreciated early because it kind of can be confused with cytokine release syndrome. It manifests a little bit later, and it manifests differently, and it is treated a little bit differently. But again, that is very much associated with kind of a robustly activated cells. That has been seen, and I think anybody who tells you they do not have that problem is probably in a way from seeing at least a little bit of it, right? Because it has been seen across targets, it has been seen across companies, and it has been seen across indications. It does not mean that a target or an indication, or a process could not make it better or worse. It is not to say that. But I think it probably is something we all need to be thoughtful of and have, again, trained physicians and have protocols to deal with each of those four side effects. The last thing that we have done is we will certainly start dose. You have seen some in the field start dose so high that patients almost died, right? You have seen some in the field have started at doses where it has taken them three or more doses to get it into the effective range. You have seen some who have kind of had it, fortunately, kind of pretty good out the gate. And we're likely in the too low or pretty good out of the gate. I don't know where we'll fall because it's very difficult to translate as you move across species into a disease setting, really what things will look like. But it may take us a dose or two to get to where we want to be. It may not. We'll see. But if we make a mistake, certainly given what you've said and certainly just given good phase I drug development, our mistake out the gate will be towards patient safety. If anything, it will be too low, not too high, we hope. That's what we believe. Got it. Seems prudent. Well, we are rapidly running out of time. Steve, I'm just going to turn it back to you to share any closing remarks you might have. Maybe remind us of the cash runway and just close it out with, again, what we can expect from you over the next, call it 12 months. Those are three very different things. Cash runway. We closed last quarter with $160 million. That will get us about a year from then. We're going to need some more money. We don't see any urgent need right now because the second part of this, we have a lot going on. It's coming up very soon. Around those things is we both understand our capital needs and investors understand kind of where the capital will be deployed. I think those are probably better times to raise money. But we'll be tactical as we need to be, and we do want to kind of replete our balance sheet over time. We have a lot coming over the next 12- 18 months. Some of it's going to be pretty quick. Those relate to things like type 1 diabetes and maybe understanding, do we really have a drug with this SG293, right? Putting them into kind of their long-term competitive profiles and understanding does this work in everybody, most, some, things like that, will take more time, right? But I think we can solve all that in 2027. So there's a lot that will happen here, and we're optimistic we've tested these medicines as rigorous as we can, and that they are going to be things that go into humans that provide meaningful clinical benefit. That doesn't always happen. So we're always anxious to turn over those cards and ensure that the hypothesis we've built this company around really turned out to be true. Yeah. Well, looking forward to it. Well, thank you so much, Steve. This has been wonderful. I really appreciate the time. Thanks. Always love talking to you, Sam. Thanks. Yeah. Good. Thank you. You guys have one more meeting as well? Yeah, we have one more meeting. It's what? 5:29. 5:29. Okay. Yeah. Perfect. I'll text you by 5:29, and we'll be done at- We'll be done at around three? Yeah. Okay. Awesome. That works well. Good. We'll see you there. We'll get the non-recorded answers. Yeah. Exactly. Well, not the background stuff. Yeah. You can tell the questions. Thank you.