Tobey Sommer: And if I could follow up on what you said about sort of visibility into new projects as you go into ’24. How — if you could describe how much visibility and much insight you have into customer planning and sort of looking out over the horizon to the extent your customers involve you in that to just kind of give us a sense for how you can construct a view for 2024 in that consumer electronics area that did demonstrate a little bit softness.
Catherine Corrigan: Yes. And look, I mean, across the business, Tobey, the — there’s quite a bit of variability in that. I mean you can imagine the reactive work that we do has a lot less visibility. But even on the proactive side, that sort of product development consulting can often be driven by things like early field failures, for example. And so there’s a piece of that, that the client is not necessarily able to foresee as they’re moving into their product launch, let’s say. So that can limit ability to sort of see what that pipeline looks like. that even on the machine learning and the human data collection side, again, they are often — they’re iterating in that product life cycle based on aspects of that, that they may or may not be able to visualize themselves, right?
So I think what I’m really trying to say is that there we do the best we can to sort of understand where the client is heading. And of course, we’re in dialogue with them, but there is an element of the type of work that we do that is driven through some level of uncertainty.
Tobey Sommer: Switching gears. I just have 2 more questions, and I’ll get back in the queue. In the — in your business, could you talk to the PFAS opportunity and what you see there? And then I’m curious what the composition of your project book looks like relative to large projects, a question that I often ask about on these calls to assess whether there’s sort of upside large project risk or represents neutral or downside risk.
Catherine Corrigan: Yes. Thanks, Toby. And maybe I’ll cover the PFOS and then I can let Rich cover the large project piece. So we absolutely are continuing to see increased activity around forever chemicals. I talked about PFAS, the perfluorinated substances. And it kind of starts at the original chemical manufacturers. But then what we’re seeing is that the issues are cascading down into the supply chain. So these chemicals are used in consumer products — in clothing in food packaging in various other applications in carpeting and Teflon pans and you name it, it’s there. And so what we’re seeing is really that cascade down into that supply chain, and we’re seeing it in the reactive sense, around the litigation environment.
So what is the impact on the environment. We’re seeing it in the regulatory arena when we talk about that type of work in the chemicals industry. And we’re also seeing it more proactively, even earlier in the product life cycle. When you think about product stewardship, clients who need to evaluate potential substitutions for PFOS in their products, and they’re looking at those sorts of things, and we are seeing those engagements. So definitely a great opportunity to bring that interdisciplinary team together of our health scientists, our environmental scientists, our exposure chemists and our material scientists to really help clients in that area.
Rich Schlenker: Yes. Toby, in relation to the large projects, we don’t have any projects today that historically, we’ve talked about large projects when they’ve been in that 4% to 5% range. And really, our portfolio in this past quarter has been made up of projects that are 2% or less in what we’re doing. That fits into the normal portfolio. Some of those will — they’re part of a litigation matter, and they’ll end in the quarter and something else will grow up to that level. Our couple of projects will replace that, but it’s more of a — much more of a normal portfolio projects at this point in time.
Operator: The next question comes from Josh Chan from UBS.
