I've written the FY2026 scenario memo. Base EBITDA is $303K, and the range runs from ($6K) in Downside to $501K in Upside. The scenario script checked that each case's driver changes add up exactly to its EBITDA, and all three cases passed.

| Scenario | Revenue | EBITDA | vs Base | % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Base | $11.2M | $303K | n/a | n/a |
| Upside | $11.9M | $501K | $197K | 65.1% |
| Downside | $10.4M | ($6K) | ($309K) | (102.0%) |

**What drives the difference:**
- **Upside** comes from revenue only:
  - **Active customers, 44 to 46:** adds $135K, assuming the two final-stage Enterprise proposals close in January.
  - **Revenue per customer, 254,536.10 to 259,626.82:** adds $62K, assuming the January price increase holds with no volume loss.
- **Downside** comes from three changes:
  - **Active customers, 44 to 41:** costs ($203K) if the three accounts on the credit watch list are lost.
  - **Gross margin, 26.6% to 25.8%:** costs ($78K) if the March vendor cost increase is not passed through.
  - **Other opex, $946K to $974K:** costs ($28K) from higher carrier fuel surcharges.
- Headcount and cost per head are the same in every case.

**Recommendation in the memo:** plan to Base.
- **Move toward Upside** only if the Enterprise deals sign and the price increase holds.
- **Move toward Downside** if a credit watch account gives notice, the vendor cost can't be passed through, or fuel surcharges rise.
- **Prepare now:** retention plans for the credit watch accounts and a plan to pass the March vendor cost through to customers.

Files are in `output/`:
- `scenario-memo.md`
- `scenarios.json`