I've written the memo to `output/scenario-memo.md`. All figures come from the scenario script's output in `output/scenarios.json`, and every scenario's driver-by-driver walk adds back to its EBITDA exactly.

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

**What drives the difference:**
- **Upside** changes only revenue. Active customers go from 44 to 46 if two Enterprise proposals close in January, which adds $135K. Revenue per customer rises if the January price increase holds, which adds $62K.
- **Downside** changes three drivers:
  - Losing the three accounts on the credit watch list takes $203K off.
  - Not passing on the March vendor cost increase drops gross margin from 26.6% to 25.8% and takes $78K off.
  - Higher carrier fuel surcharges add $28K to other costs.
- Headcount and cost per head are the same in all three cases.

The memo recommends planning to Base. It lists what would move the plan to Upside or Downside and the decisions to prepare now: keeping the credit-watch accounts, passing on the vendor cost increase, and recovering fuel surcharges from carriers.

One thing to check: the assumptions refer to January and March events, and it's now October 2026. If FY2026 runs on the calendar year, those events have already happened. In that case the scenarios should be updated with what actually occurred before the memo goes out.