I've written the FY2026 scenario memo to `output/scenario-memo.md`. The script's figures are in `output/scenarios.json`, and all three scenario walks add back exactly to their EBITDA.

**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%) |

**What drives the difference:**
- **Upside** moves 2 drivers:
  - Active customers go from 44 to 46, adding $135K. The assumption is that two Enterprise proposals in their final stage close in January.
  - Revenue per customer goes from 254,536.10 to 259,626.82, adding $62K. The assumption is that the January price increase holds with no lost volume.
- **Downside** moves 3 drivers:
  - Active customers go from 44 to 41, a change of ($203K). The assumption is that three accounts on the credit watch list are lost.
  - Gross margin goes from 26.6% to 25.8%, a change of ($78K). The assumption is that the March vendor cost increase isn't passed on to customers.
  - Other opex goes from $946K to $974K, a change of ($28K), because carrier fuel surcharges rise.

**Recommendation:** plan to Base.
- **Signals for Upside:** both Enterprise proposals sign in January and the price increase holds.
- **Signals for Downside:** a credit-watch account leaves, or the vendor cost increase can't be passed on. In Downside, EBITDA turns negative at ($6K).
- **Decisions to prepare now:** a plan for passing on the vendor increase, retention plans for the credit-watch accounts, and a review of the carrier fuel surcharge terms.

The deltas measure how much each driver moved EBITDA, applied in a fixed order. They are not each driver's share of the change. The memo gives no probability to any case.