I've written the FY2026 scenario memo to `output/scenario-memo.md`, with the script's figures in `output/scenarios.json`. The script ran without errors and checked that every scenario's driver-by-driver walk adds up to its EBITDA exactly.

**Headline:** Base EBITDA is $303K, with a range from ($6K) in Downside to $501K in Upside.

| 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%) |

- **Upside** changes two drivers. Active customers go from 44 to 46 if two Enterprise proposals close in January, adding $135K. Revenue per customer rises if the January price increase holds, adding $62K.
- **Downside** changes three drivers:
  - Losing three accounts on the credit watch list takes ($203K).
  - Gross margin falls from 26.6% to 25.8% if the March vendor cost increase isn't passed on to customers, taking ($78K).
  - Higher carrier fuel surcharges push other opex up, taking ($28K).

  Together these turn EBITDA into a small loss.
- **Recommendation:** plan to Base. The memo lists what would move the plan toward Upside or Downside and the decisions to prepare now.

Headcount and cost per head are the same in all three scenarios, so the memo doesn't test what staffing changes would do.