But the core technology underneath it, if we make an improvement to a stack, it affects the EW, it affects the EC, it affects any place that we deploy product.
Tony Rabb: Yes. Thanks, Eric. This is Tony. So, essentially, we’re producing these on the same manufacturing lines, ECs and EWs from a battery cell and battery stack standpoint, and the materials are the same. So if I’m producing, as I transition to producing ECs and scaling those up, the vendors that I’m using and the amount of material that I’m buying for the battery cells and the stacks, it’s all the same. And so it helps in terms of efficiency from an inventory standpoint, from a volume standpoint, and the leverage that we have with those vendors. So all that, I think is a positive as we scale the business up. And the key for us is going to be make sure that we’re qualifying the best vendors and we have the ability to work down the lead times that we have with our vendors today.
Chris Kapsch: Got it. And apologies for my dyslexia. I’ll blame that on the earnings season slog. But the follow-up was you mentioned sort of the collaboration in around your IP and their IP. I’m just wondering if there’s some opportunity when collaborating that will lead to a more discernible competitive advantage when addressing the long duration energy storage market. And is it right to assume that the most attractive piece of your IP portfolio still is the proton pump technology? And if you could write any color on what they’re bringing to the table from an IP standpoint, that would be interesting. Thank you.
Eric Dresselhuys: Yes, sure. Well, I think — certainly I think that the proton pump is a very appealing part of our overall portfolio. I think the other thing that I’d say, not to put words in their mouth, but they were incredibly complementary of our stack, the stack design and our manufacturability of the stack and to do that with quality, and it’s something I think people take for granted. But building a really high quality stack is not a small thing, and we got a lot of really positive marks from them on that. In terms of the collaboration, I think you hit it on the head. The goal here is not to always find ways to move things forward. So I don’t think it’s going to result in any radical changes to our approach. They came to us in part because they liked iron flow.
They absolutely appreciated the inherent advantages of iron flow technology in terms of performance, safety, hitting cost points. But they’ve got a ton of expertise around advanced materials. So whether that’s separator materials or different power electronics, or anything that we can do to improve the cost and the performance of the system, I think are all things that are on the table. I would tell you that after the first meeting, there was no shortage of ideas of things to go collaborate on together. And they’ve done a lot of in their IP portfolio around things like separator materials and things like that. As you would probably appreciate, they’ve been a major player in that space across everything from petrochemicals to plastics to fuel cells to you name it.
So they bring a wealth of experience on how to maximize those kinds of products, and we’re really looking forward to tapping into that.
Operator: Thank you for your question. Next question is from the line of Thomas Boyes with TD Cowen. Your line is now open.
Thomas Boyes: Thanks for taking the questions. I joined the call a little bit late, so apologize in advance if some of these were already asked, but I just want to get a better sense of maybe where we are in the continuum of transferring to regular way accounting this quarter. I know that some inventory items based on the time when they were purchased, kind of present themselves differently as they flow through the P&L. Can you maybe just talk about that mechanism broadly? And then, should we expect this to kind of be free and clear in 4Q, or is there any lingering effects into 2024?
