I wrote the memo to `fy2026_scenario_memo.md`. In the Downside scenario, the business makes no money: it shows a $6K operating loss.

| | Downside | Base | Upside |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| Revenue | $10.44M | $11.20M | $11.94M |
| Operating income | **$(6K)** | **$303K** | **$501K** |
| Operating margin | (0.1)% | 2.7% | 4.2% |

- **The downside is bigger than the upside.** Downside is $309K below Base, while Upside is only $197K above it.
- **Losing the three credit-watch accounts is the biggest risk.** It accounts for $203K of the $309K downside. Not passing on the March vendor cost increase adds $78K, and higher fuel surcharges add $28K.
- **There's little room to absorb losses.** In Base, gross profit covers operating costs only 1.11 times. Losing about 4.5 customers would bring the business to breakeven.
- **Passing on the vendor cost increase would recover $78K.** That alone would keep the Downside profitable, at about $72K.
- **The scenarios include no cost cuts.** Headcount and cost per head are the same in all three, so Downside shows what happens if nothing is done in response.

The CSV only lists the drivers, so I assumed how they combine. Revenue is customers times revenue per customer. Gross profit is revenue times gross margin. Operating income is gross profit minus staff cost (headcount × cost per head) and other operating costs. I also took every value as a full-year FY2026 figure. The file doesn't say whether the January deal wins, the January price increase or the March vendor increase are already timed into those numbers. The memo lists both points under its limitations section.

I didn't use the close-reconciliation skill because it says it isn't for forecasts or scenarios.