Good morning, everyone. We'll go ahead and get started here with the next session. I'm very pleased to welcome the management team from Zimmer, Ivan Tornos, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Paul Stellato, Interim Chief Financial Officer. I obviously have a bunch of questions, but happy to open it up to others should you have questions, and we'll just get you a mic for those participating on the webcast so they can hear. We'll just start with a very dynamic year for Zimmer Biomet with the Salesforce transition. One of the things that you clarified recently was this investor dialogue around 1099 versus FTE and dedicated and non-dedicated. Just to set the record straight. Sure. What are you actually doing? Why are we doing it? Sure. Where are you in that? All right. Well, first of all, good morning, everybody. Thank you for hosting us. The go-to-market changes in the U.S., maybe let me just take three minutes, give you a longer answer than you anticipated to break down and summarize what is the problem we're trying to solve. As a company, we do roughly $8.5 billion in sales, Zimmer Biomet, and roughly 60%, six zero percent, of our book of business here in the U.S. Not to mention most of the EBITDA comes from the U.S., call it $4.5 billion of revenue in the U.S. Again, most of the profit. We've been operating forever, with what we call an independent channel. Independent is mostly 1099s. We've been operating mostly with a non-specialized channel, which basically means that we take a multi-platform approach. I get up in the morning, I go sell hips, knees, until recently, foot and ankle, shoulder, sports medicine, whatever. We have a productivity challenge in the U.S. Our average rep in the U.S. does seven cases per week. Seven cases per week versus our leading competitor doing 16.7 cases. Again, mostly independent, non-dedicated, only 1/4 is specialized, and a productivity dynamic of doing less than half the number of cases of our competitors. What are we trying to do? Four key principles behind what we call Project Optima internally. The best version of our commercial execution journey. Principle number one, everybody has to be fully dedicated to Zimmer Biomet. Everybody has to be fully dedicated. That doesn't mean everybody has to be a 1099 or rather a W-2. Not everybody's going to convert from 1099 to W-2. That's probably something that early on in the journey we confused people with, 1099, W-2. Everybody has to be fully dedicated. If that means that at the end of the transformation, there is a percentage of the channel that remains 1099, as long as they're fully dedicated, exclusive to Zimmer Biomet, we're okay with that. We run a business called CMFT, cranio maxillofacial thoracic, that is all 1099s. That business is growing 15%, 16% for a big any amount of years. Principle number one, fully dedicated, exclusive to Zimmer Biomet. Guiding principle number two, we are going to specialize 100% of the channel. The days of selling different products across the board are over. We're going to be best in class when it comes to focus. We're building verticals around shoulders, sports medicine, recon hips and knees. Already got a vertical on CMFT. Through Paragon 28, we got another vertical on foot and ankle. That's principle number two. Principle number three, we're going to add all kinds of capabilities in areas where we didn't have those capabilities. We're hiring 200 people in technology to sell ROSA OptimiZe, ROSA Shoulder, Monogram. We are adding a ton of people when it comes to ASC, ambulatory surgical centers. We are adding a ton of people when it comes to market access and doing contracting a different way. That's guiding principle number three. Number four, we are going to have a different level of governance. We have had inconsistent incentive plans. Our operating mechanisms, the way we manage the channel, have not been great for a variety of reasons, we're changing that as well. The sum of all parts, we will see our productivity going up, we'll see our focus going up, and those two things alone should drive better performance in the U.S. than the performance we have seen here for the last, call it, three to five years. Can you maybe visualize for us or give some examples of what non-dedicated looks like for someone? Sometimes you use terminology on calls that is disconnected from the way we look at things. Is this like someone sitting around selling hips and knees, and they're like a crypto trader on the side? They're running a laundromat on the side? What does it actually look like? I'm not sure about the crypto, the laundromat, yes. Okay. Non-dedicated is somebody who may have two, three jobs other than Zimmer Biomet. That's real. Right? If you're a 1099 independent agent, you're kind of like a franchisee of the company. You represent all products in a given geography, you do other stuff. Going back to data, we got 2/3s, or we had, now it's a different number. We had 2/3s of the company at the beginning of 2026 that were non-dedicated to Zimmer Biomet, mostly 2,500 reps in the U.S. More numbers coming your way. 2/3s at the beginning of 2026 were independent agents, 2/3a of the 2/3a, we can start breaking down the funnel here, had at least a second, if not a third job. Yes, not cryptocurrency, we got people with Dairy Queens, tanning bed salons, got people with distribution agreements for other medical device companies. The focus is not there. Again, that's why we do seven cases per week versus some of our competitors doing 16.7 cases per week. We got people that work sometimes two days a week. What else? You got competitors that are doing cases five days a week. That's the whole dedicated, non-dedicated, focus, non-focus dynamic. How do you avoid, I guess, unintended turnover? Because if you're in one of those positions, it sounds like a pretty good gig. I get to cover some cases for Zimmer Biomet, get to run this other cash flow business on the side. How do you avoid losing the right people? Well, with a lot of data and a lot of caution, not to mention best-in-class project management. We segmented the project, this Project Optima, in three stages. Stage one is what we call no-regret moves. You got territories that have grown less than 1% for five years. You got territories that grew nothing in 2025. In those territories, we know that we have a focus, a commercial execution challenge. We're moving faster in that stage number one. We've done most of that already in 2026, and again, it's gone better than expected. You move to the second stage, which is, hey, it's a bit of a mix bag here. Not everybody in this stage is having commercial execution challenges. There may be some contracting dynamics. The company also has done what we have done when it comes to supply over the years. We got to be careful. Retention agreements. We buy some of these business other people have. We guarantee certain extensions of geography, product lines in some conversations. That one, we're being more careful. You got stage three, which is the, hey, this may be risky. We're going to go slowly. We're going to guarantee certain things in advance. I've made public remarks around how six independent distributors at Zimmer Biomet. We already had a conversation with those 60 distributors giving 10-year extensions with guarantees. The trade-off is that you can no longer represent a second or third company. You have to be fully exclusive to Zimmer Biomet. Again, segmentation in different stages, conversations territory by territory. Yes, money matters in this conversation. We're doing what's right for these territories. And- Oh, go ahead, Paul. Yeah. The thing I'd add is that the attention to change management has been critical on this, and that's ultimately the governor on how fast we go. If we haven't checked all the boxes on have we had the conversations, do we know the potential repercussions, we're not going to move forward until we're comfortable with that. That's helped kind of make sure things stay on track. As you make these decisions to give longer-term guarantees or, and invest in your people, does that create a disconnect or mismatch in the P&L where you're deploying resources but you're not seeing the revenue return yet from the shift from non-dedicated to dedicated? First of all, the reason why we guided EPS the way that we did in 2026 is because we knew we were going to have some expenses associated with the transformation of the channel. When we move from non-dedicated, and now let me use 1099 again, to W-2, it's more expensive. W-2, you're fully burdened, you got benefits and whatnot. Again, the assumption, and so far the assumption has been validated, is that as you increase your number of cases and you increase your revenue, there is an absorption dynamic there. Net is a much better investment. Yeah, there's some short-term variances when it comes to the cost dynamic here. On the top line, obviously, you have the guidance that's your 1%-3%. You started a little bit better than that. I know talk about comps and days and things like that. Maybe how are you assessing whether this is successful or not? Is it going to be the pace at which you get reps converted? Is it going to be hitting the 1%-3%? Is it going to be doing it faster? Number two is getting better financial performance. There's all kinds of qualitative inputs, but ultimately, we got to see cases going up. As we see cases going up, we're going into the right accounts, not just servicing cases. Not all cases are created equal. That's ultimately the definition of productivity. In 2026, seeing a much better productivity per rep, both in terms of the quantity and the quality of cases. We appreciate all the numbers. We love numbers. Did you know? So do I. Yeah. Maybe it's not the right way to think about it, but tell me if it isn't. Is there a certain percentage of the U.S. revenue covered that's been converted, not just looking at bodies? Yes. Again, we locked in at least 40% of revenue that is driven by all the independents. Okay. I quoted that earlier. By eliminating the stage one dynamic, already covered another 20%. You could say we're 50%, 60% done. Okay. I think you've talked about this being a two-year process to complete? We want to exit 2027 with this fully behind us. Okay. Does that mean that 2027 will be a similar year of revenue disruption? I don't know. Too early to talk about 2027. Look, some of the changes we're making in early 2026 are going to be a tailwind for 2027. Some of these 200 people that we're hiring for tech are going to be a tailwind for 2027. Some of these retention agreements that we put in 2026 are going to be a tailwind for 2027. Then you have the conversation of are you going to lose, as you get into the riskier areas, are you going to lose some of these commercial partnerships? Too early to talk about 2027. Very excited about 2026. Very excited about the reset that we're making here. What I can tell you is that once we're done with this, the U.S. is going to be growing at the pace that the U.S. deserves to grow. What is that number? Mid-single digit or above. Okay. It's almost by elimination, right? If the market is healthy, and it is, growing 4%-5%. If innovation is compelling, and it is, launching 50 new products in three years, there's not a single gap in the portfolio. By elimination, the one thing that is broken is the U.S. commercial channel, the productivity in the U.S. channel. As you fix that, if innovation is there and the market doesn't retract, which it will not, you should be growing at least at market growth rates, if not slightly above. Mid-single digit or above. That's a good segue, I think, to dive into some of the innovations. You look at some of the products that you've launched so far across the suite that you're describing as the Magnificent Seven. It looks like a couple of them, like Hips, Z1, and HAMMR appear to be sort of killing it on the upside. I'm sure you always want more, but those seem to be doing great. We don't seem to be seeing an impact yet on some of the other ones. Maybe just kind of frame for us where you are in kind of the journey of some of these product launches and how they're doing and what we should expect. Sure. You make it sound so cool. Z1 and HAMMR are killing it. Yeah. I feel like we should give T-shirts we have. It's more than Z1 and HAMMR. OrthoGrid is growing strongly in the double digits. The three key hip launches as part of the Magnificent Seven are overperforming. We grew hips in the U.S. in Q1, 5%. Second half 2025 was mid-single digit plus, upper single digit for one of the quarters. Solid day plus in terms of execution of those launches. In Knees, it's not that we're not seeing the growth of Persona, OsseoTi, Oxford parts of Cementless, is that you got some bad guys in the mix, right? You got some headwinds within the Knee portfolio. We got to do better. Commercial execution has not been great. That's not to say that those product launches are not being successfully launched, or they're not working out well for us. Hips is doing better than Knees. I wouldn't say that the knee product launches are not working out. Okay. Maybe before we go onto Paragon 28, I wonder if we could just talk about the competitive environment, because there's a lot happening. There's always a lot happening, but it seems to be especially unique now where Stryker seems to be sort of steady, the cybersecurity dynamic. You have two other competitors who continue to go through a lot of change. How are you seeing just the competitive landscape unfold? The competitive environment has always been intense, and it's not going to slow down. Four companies account for 82%, 84% of the revenue, and the fight is on. I like where we are. We didn't have a portfolio. We have it today. We didn't have some of the dedicated structure that we're building, and we're building it. I like where we're at. I like our chances as we exit 2026 and enter 2027. I welcome the fight. Okay. Maybe going onto Paragon and just the whole SET business in general. You're about a year-ish into closing Paragon. Talk about how have things gone. What are you seeing in the business now? It's been a very exciting journey. We closed the deal in late April 2025, so we anniversary recently. This is a business that is growing double-digit now. It's a business that prior to being acquired was growing in the mid-teens. We strongly believe that's the growth rate as we exit 2026. Starting to see that as we hit midpoint in 2026. There is a bolus of innovation coming out of that business in a variety of fronts. We just reviewed the LRP, the long-range plan, with the board. We believe we have a strong pathway to become number one in foot and ankle by the end of the LRP. LRP is four or five years. The integration is going better than expected, so we're not seeing disruption from a channel dynamics standpoint. Our turnover in that business is very low. No slowdowns. As I mentioned, innovation. The same management team that we had, or they had, at Paragon 28, Albert and the team, Matt Jarboe and whatnot, they are the managers running this business. So far, a year behind, every single financial commitment is being delivered when it comes to level of dilution from an EPS standpoint, integration cost, and the same is going to apply for the second year. I think this is a great validation point for Zimmer Biomet. This shows that we know how to do deals. We know how to pick the deal strategically. We know how to integrate the deal operationally, and this will serve as a proxy for future deals to come. And how are you thinking about M&A just in the context of the commercial changes that you're making? Where does M&A fall in the priority scheme, and what does the environment look like? We've always going to look for responsible diversification, and that means M&A. 2026, we said that it was not the year to do M&A because we got a lot going on, right? This is a Herculean project in the U.S. Changing a chunk of 2,545 reps, building on these capabilities that I went through, dealing with all these contract extensions, that's a lot of work, right? That is the primary focus of the organization, starting with myself for 2026. In the backdrop of that, we're integrating OrthoGrid, another deal that we did. We are integrating Monogram, first-in-the-world surgical autonomy. We are integrating other smaller deals that we've done over the years. Paragon plus Monogram plus the smaller deals plus the channel is a lot. In 2026, we said that we're going to deploy. Capital allocations are going to be deployed towards buybacks. As you know, capital allocation tends to be fluid and opportunistic at times. When you got the multiple that we got, and you generate the cash flow that we do, we're going to prioritize differently, and this year we're doing a $1 billion in buybacks. As we enter 2027, the responsibility to diversify continues, and we'll embrace other deals similar to Paragon 28. By the way, in 2026, we also committed to a $300 million investment with Deerfield Management and HSS to look for other conduits of innovation. It's a lot that we got going on. This is not a company that needs more innovation. It's a company that needs better execution. What would be those other conduits of innovation? Is that like a venture portfolio? Is it incubating companies? We're looking at early stage cartilage repair opportunities, restoring versus replacing. We're looking at, as the world's, I would say, as the company that collects the most data in the world in orthopedics before surgery, during, after, what can we do with that data early on, foundational models, the whole ability to predict versus explore different surgeries, rethinking the dynamics post-discharge. What are some of the different contracts that we can reinvent or reengineer, doing contract in a different way? We are investing with Deerfield in a variety of fronts around biosurgicals and whatnot. It's a lot of stuff that we're doing now with the Deerfield management team. Okay, great. Again, that's a long-winded speech to tell you the same thing. We got a lot going on innovation. That's not to say we're not going to do M&A. The time will come. The cash flow generation in this business is great. In 2025, in 2026, we've done a lot. We've talked a lot about some of the nearer term and recent launches, and maybe we could go a little bit farther out. You referenced Monogram. You did a demo at AAOS in February. Maybe just remind people the timelines for Monogram. Sure Also just the commercial strategy around how Monogram fits with your broader robotic strategy. Sure. Monogram, we completed the clinical trial. We are in preparation mode to submit the 510(k). We still expect to launch early 2027 the semi-autonomous, and late 2027 the fully autonomous with a caveat, I've said this publicly, that we may be able to bring the fully autonomous sooner to market. The feedback so far has been extremely compelling. We're going to take our time because this is new technology. Again, first to the world surgical autonomy in orthopedics. There are five key vectors or theses that we validated in the preclinical trial. Number one is safety. We had zero patient safety-related events. The surgical boundaries within this tool, with the Monogram robot, are outstanding. It's as smart as it gets. Number one is safety. Number two is around ease of use. This is a robot that has fast registration. This is a robot that reduces preparation time dramatically versus conventional robotics. Bone cutting, preparation of the actual surgery is less than three, four minutes. Very easy to use, very efficient. We believe at some point we can bring time neutrality to cases. One of the main reasons why 80% of surgeons don't use a robot is because they don't want to slow down their cases or change the surgical algorithm. Again, early in the conversation, but we've seen that we can get into a time neutrality, so efficiency. Reproducibility, the whole dynamic, once you've done three cases, you've done 300. Exaggerating for effect, but you get it. This is not, again, something that requires a lot of complex changes. Then accuracy. We've seen in the clinical trials a totally different level of accuracy, 40% improvement in accuracy. So safety, efficiency, ease of use, reproducibility and accuracy. Again, look forward to the 510(k) submission. Then in terms of the business model, how we plan to commercialize Monogram, there are three key opportunities or business cases. One. I just referenced 80% of surgeons in the U.S. don't use a robot. There are 29,000 orthopedic surgeons in the U.S. 20% use a robot, that's 5,800. You got a chunk that do not. We believe there's a blue ocean opportunity in that first business case to bring this technology to that 80% and increase penetration or adoption of robotics. The second vector or the second business case is obviously attacking competitive accounts. We have had mixed results versus some competitors given a variety of reasons from a product standpoint that are mitigated with Monogram. Then the third business case is going to be some of these ROSA users moving on to a Monogram. We don't think that's going to be the premier opportunity because ROSA is very sticky. It's the number one robot outside the U.S., and those who use ROSA and like ROSA don't switch. It's a shadow wallet opportunity, if you will, tie trading up to a higher revenue type of robotic platform. Three very specific business cases, lots of excitement. We look forward to launching in early 2027. Can you just go into a little more detail on that comment you just made about the dynamics with robotic competition? It sounds like there are gaps, maybe gaps on ROSA in the U.S. The reality is that in the U.S., there is a preference towards CT scanning with a segment of users. That's why we remediated that gap with our partnership with TMINI, and we're launching a ROSA that is CT scan-based as well. Yes, for those users that prefer CT scan versus image less, Monogram is going to be another weapon that we're bringing to market. For those surgeons that rather have less involvement in the case, some call it haptic technology, less surgeon involvement, whatever you want to call it, Monogram should become a very desirable choice. Again, outside the U.S., it's the opposite dynamic. Outside the U.S., CT scanning is not reimbursed in a lot of countries. Radiation is a deep conversation. 5%, I was reading an article or a study rather, that 5% of all cancers are CT scan radiation-based. Some surgeons outside of the U.S. pay attention to those dynamics. We're going to have one thing that I believe is going to be a major competitive advantage: optionality. We're going to have all kinds of robotic applications in all kinds of pre-planning method with all kinds of pre-planning methodology, plus mixed reality, plus all the functional navigation. Optionality. Okay. I guess maybe the last question here, just on as you think about the segmentation of the market, that 80% who don't use a robot, is there a profile of that type of surgeon? Are those low volume surgeons? Sure. How would you describe- Sure Maybe there isn't a way to homogenize it. Well, we've done, as you can imagine, extensive VOC, voice of customer, and we run very large market research studies. 29,000 surgeons in the U.S., 20% adoption of robotics, 80% do not. 110,000 surgeons outside the U.S., 10% penetration robotics, 90% do not use robots. By the way, the 110,000 is probably not every country in the world, but it's the largest 10, 15 countries. Folks in the U.S., four or five reasons why I don't use a robot. Number one, I mentioned this earlier, it slows me down. I'm a high volume user. I want to go fast. I can't just change my surgical technique algorithm and it slow my cases down. Robotics are not reimbursed. I want to do more cases. That's number one. Number two, it's complex. I got to change my surgical algorithm. Number three, it's expensive in my healthcare system, my hospital, in my ASC. I'm not going to be able to acquire that. That is getting mitigated because we do a lot of installations. Number four, you alluded to this, my volume doesn't qualify. 75% of orthopedic surgeons in the U.S. are doing less than 25 knees per year. Again, all kinds of data here today, David, but 29,000 orthopedic surgeons, 75% of those orthopedic surgeons are doing 25 knee cases per year or less. That's roughly two per month. When you're doing those volumes, you're going to have a Mako, ROSA, whatever. That's a great opportunity for Monogram. Again, we ought to think about the economic strategy here, but if you believe what I just told you, that it's very intuitive, it's very easy to use. You don't have to change your surgical algorithm, this is really democratizing robotics. Those users or those surgeons that are doing 25 knees per year are going to embrace this and potentially do more volume as they get more confident with Monogram. Okay. That's great. Maybe we can turn over to the P&L. Obviously, a strong first quarter gross margin. There are some tariff dynamics in there, but maybe you could peel apart the 73% gross margin and give us a sense what even the underlying profitability was and how that maps to the 70%-71% guidance for the year. Yeah. Fair point. Good question. Yeah. As a reminder, in the first quarter, we did recognize a $0.20 upside relative to the Supreme Court ruling on tariffs. That gave us a little over 200 basis points of performance, and that's mostly raw, that gross margin level. That kind of gets you back in line with what you'd expect. Yeah, for the balance of the year, we've got everything else kind of baked into the guidance that we gave to all the right data points, so you can kind of trace how things kind of flow in through the balance of the year. We did have a little bit of inflation that we had factored in. That we knew that coming in, and that was again why we've guided to where we are. Even with that dynamic in Q1, that 70%-71% sits below where you were kind of trending last year too. Is that just because of timing of recognizing higher cost inventory flowing through the P&L? How does that shake out as we exit this year into next year? Yep. Exactly. It's, as you know, things kind of come in through the P&L on a lag as it goes through there. That is kind of flowing its way through, and then we're doing a lot of different activities to try to drive cost out heading into next year. Obviously we're not going to provide any guidance as it relates to the 2027, but we're always trying to drive those productivity measures and other kind of activities to make sure that we're in as good a position as possible I think in the next year. Maybe just taking through the rest of the P&L even, Paragon as you mentioned, annualized. You still had Q1 without Paragon last year and with Paragon this year, you've sort of seen R&D flatten out in dollars. How do we interpret the growth in R&D? Well, as I mentioned earlier, we got different ways to bring innovation to market. If you go back the last three, five years, we've invested roughly half a billion dollars organically as the 5% in R&D. We've done at least half a billion dollars inorganically. Not to mention we have development agreements in a variety of fronts. We spoke about Deerfield. We also have an innovation partnership with Water Street. We launched three, four products with them. One of them is actually Z1. Another one is going to be ROSA Pinless, the first pinless robot to hit the market very soon, by the way. This is not a story of just the 5% in the P&L is the conduit to innovation. As I tell people, we don't do just research and development, we do search and development. Again, different partnerships, different conduits. A lot of that R&D historically that you saw there was sustained in engineering. When I joined the company in 2018, late 2018, 60%, 65% of R&D was sustained engineering. Now it's kind of like reverse 60%, 65% is new product development. A lot of our sustained engineering is just move out of the U.S. to other geographies. We got a technology center in Bangalore in India that is going to be doing a lot of the sustained engineering. I believe that the percentage does not represent the dollars that we invest in innovation. That said, we're able to reshuffle things as we go. We operate, David, with 46.1% OPEX, so there is plenty of room for us to reshuffle things from one category to the other, and we're not going to compromise the innovation journey as we seek to deliver EPS. What the other thing I'd add too, is we did have a restructuring activity that we announced last year. That kind of phases in. Some of these are a little bit of a longer tail, some are overseas, so you don't start to see those savings kick in until the back half. That kind of helps as well. Very helpful. As you think about kind of wrapping 2026 together, should we view this as kind of a transition year on back to the mid-single-digit growth? How do you sort of contextualize 2026 for people? How much of what you're seeing this year is really isolated to 2026, and when do you think we get back to- Yeah a normalized growth trajectory? Yeah, I think that's a very fair way to recap it. 2026 is a transition year. If you go back to the last five years, we have been delivering mid-single-digit growth or above, right? I always go back to 2021. We delivered 10% growth. Okay, as COVID comes, it doesn't count. You go to next year, we delivered 6.5% top-line growth. In 2023, we delivered 7.5 organic constant currency revenue growth with nice, by the way, EPS leverage of 200 basis points. Adjusted EPS in 2023 was 9.5% growth. 2024, the year of the ERP debacle, we delivered 5% organic growth, 4.8 to be exact. Last year, with unique challenges in a variety of fronts, we delivered 4%, 3.9, once again, to be exact. This is not a story of we're missing commitments, we're not delivering the growth. This is a story of inconsistency. We're going to address the inconsistency that this business has had. You cannot drive consistency in an $8.5 billion business if the U.S. is not delivering that mid-single digit or above. The U.S. is not going to deliver mid-single digit or above if we don't have a dedicated, specialized, well-operated channel. That's what we're doing in 2026. We're fixing that. Outside of the U.S., the usual challenges that we had in a variety of pockets, we're addressing those as well. Yes, I would call 2026 a year of transition. We're going to make the changes we need to make on commercial execution. We're going to clean up the last things we got to do from an operational standpoint. As we emerge out of that, you should see this company delivering mid-single digit or above in a durable, consistent manner. Just on the earnings side, since you took the tariff refund this year, is that a headwind you have to overcome next year? Yeah, I'd say that it's a fair question, right? Obviously for this year, we've kind of talked about the dynamic, a bunch of what impacted us favorably in Q1. We actually anticipated some of that in the second half already. We're obviously not going to go direct on providing 2027 guidance, but I wouldn't expect a refund to recur, right? That's certainly a fair comment. The other thing I'd add, though, is we did step up our share repurchase. We're committed to a $1 billion buyback this year. We've talked about the timing and that we're going to try to align that as best we can with cash flows that's largely back-end loaded. We'll always be opportunistic, right? We don't want to restrict ourselves, but if you think about in the next year, that would be one at the EPS level. Okay. Bad guy on the tariff, good guy on buybacks and good guys on a variety of other fronts. Yeah That we'll talk about when the time is right. It's a webcast, time could be right. When the time is right, is when we give guidance for 2027. Okay. Understood. All right, I had to try. Maybe just to wrap up here, I know a lot of times there's a short-term dynamic- Sometimes Maybe more than you'd like, but maybe just sort of take a step back and think about, you gave this LRP in May of 2024. A lot has changed since then. When do you think you'll be in a position where you want to recast a longer-term view, or are you going to- Yeah do that? 37 seconds left on the clock. I'll just comment quickly on the LRP that we gave in May of 2024. We said on average, revenue should be mid-single digit growth in the absence of M&A for four years, which by the way, two years into the LRP, I go back to the numbers that I provided, 4.8, 3.9, we do in there. EPS $1.5 in the absence of M&A. We did M&A, so that's out. In May of 2024, none of us knew how to spell tariffs. The revenue's been there. The other dynamics, M&A tariffs has complicated the LRP. Very soon, we'll be providing the next three years of what the LRP looks like. At that point, we'll talk more around with the go-to-market changes addressing the U.S., and the bolus of innovation, and the launch of Monogram, what does this company look like for the next five years? I will tell you, it's going to be a totally different company. Excellent. We look forward to that and look forward to the next update in July, August. Thank you so much, David. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. Thank you.