Scott Davis: Helpful context. If we back up a little bit again, you cited the SAF win with DG Fuels. Can — what is the scope when you classify something like a win like that? Are you talking full meters, valves? Is there controls? Is there — is it kind of across a full suite of offering? Or is there more specific stuff that you target for those types of projects you would class as a win?
Lal Karsanbhai: Yes. No, this was a — if you think about our — the automation stack, this was pretty much across the entire stack, the final control elements, the muscle in the plant, the sensing elements that we use both flow, pressure level and temperature, the DeltaV control system and then the analytics packages alongside it. So this was a holistic full package, 100% Emerson win, which really proved out the value of the portfolio and how it all comes together at a customer site.
Scott Davis: Helpful. Thank you. Congrats. I’ll pass on.
Operator: The next question comes from Julian Mitchell of Barclays. Please go ahead.
Julian Mitchell: Hi, good morning. Just wanted to circle back to the discussion around sort of process investments by the large customers, particularly in the sort of oil and gas and energy world. Because it does seem as if there’s an understandably a clear effort on that part is sort of shovel more of their cash to shareholders, whether they’re government in the Middle East or public shareholders in the West. So just wondered your thoughts, Lal, on the kind of sustainability of that high single-digit orders growth in process that you saw in Q1. Should we expect that to moderate over the next sort of 12 months or so? And does that then pull the backlog down with it? Or the book-to-bill was so high that the backlog can still grow with moderating orders?
Lal Karsanbhai: Yes. It’s a great question, Julian. I just returned from the Middle East where our team spent — India and the Middle East, so our team spent time with significant customers in Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Qatar. And I can tell you that the environment is very robust, predominantly around sustainability and energy transition, those 2 elements. And I think there’s enough demand-driven activity that will give us confidence in the sustained mid-single-digit kind of exit rate on process on the total company orders at the end of the year. So at this point, we’ve been thinking and analyzing this now for about three quarters or so. But we haven’t seen any kind of deceleration in the process, particularly in the spaces that you’re asking about.
As a matter of fact, we continue to see very disciplined spending, very intentional around core elements of automation that can differentiate production around reliability, efficiency, productivity, of course, and safety. And that hasn’t waned yet. And I don’t — we don’t foresee that as we go through the year.
Julian Mitchell: That’s helpful. Thank you. And then just a much more sort of near-term fiddly question. Just looking at the second quarter guide on Slide 10, so the EPS at the midpoint is going up maybe $0.02 sequentially from Q1 despite a decent revenue and volume increase sequentially. Partly, that’s the test and measurement earnings falling sequentially. But just wondered if there was anything else like in the base business changing in terms of mix or something like that as you move from sort of Q1 to Q2.
Mike Baughman: No, you hit it right with the test and measurement comment. And the leverage in the low to mid-40s coming through reflects no big change in mix or trajectory. So no, really nothing there on the Q2 guide.
Julian Mitchell: Great. Thank you.
Operator: The next question comes from Chris Snyder of UBS. Please go ahead.
Christopher Snyder: Thank you. I also wanted to ask on National Instruments. Q1 came in about $80 million above the guide. But you guys are now talking to a full year of $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion. All the commentary on the last call was $1.6 billion. So I guess, why that range following the beat? Is it just a rounding error? Or is National Instruments maybe turning a little bit slower than you thought previously? Thank you.
Colleen Mettler: Yes. Chris, if you go back to November guide, that range has remained consistent. I think it was just a round in $1.6 billion that was being spoken about.
Christopher Snyder: Yes, thank you. And then I just want to ask on margins. It’s been a real bright spot for the company over the last couple of years. You guys beat the incremental guide again here in Q1. But I believe the full year guide on the incrementals was lower, I think, from — to low to mid-40s from mid- to high despite the Q1 beat. Is there anything there on mix or something that we should be aware of? Thank you.
Mike Baughman: Yes. Chris, the — in the comments, we talked about the effect of foreign exchange. We changed assumption there, and it had a 1-point increase on FX, which comes into the leverage number with a much lower profitability attached to it. The drivers around leverage remain the same with volume and leverage and price/cost, and then we continue to drive the Emerson management process with cost reductions to offset inflation, so yes. But to answer your question specifically, the change in the guide was really solely attributed to that FX element.
Christopher Snyder: Thank you.
Operator: The next question comes from Deane Dray of RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Deane Dray: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Look, there’s been a lot of focus on the progress you’re making on the cost synergies front in National Instruments. Can we talk a bit about expectations for revenue synergies? It might be too early, but just timing and size and where it might come from? Is it cross-selling? Are there new customers you’ve been opened up to? But just what’s the expectation?
