Dave McJannet: Thanks Mark, yes, I think you’re exactly right on the correlation of the consumption models and the lag for the entitlement models, I think, as you pointed out in the past. And so generally speaking, you saw from some of the consumption models commentary about improvement. I think for us, we sort of have to wait until the quarter progressed a little bit more to be able to make much of a commentary. I think as ever, there’s tremendous interest for what we do, getting through the procurement departments becomes the question. And I think that is always the wildcard. I would say too early to tell based on the last month or — as we indicated, our deal volumes in Q3 were as Navam indicated, higher than ever. Our win rates were consistent. Our discounted practices are no different. So we’re certainly optimistic that that continues.
Mark Murphy: And then – thank you, Dave. Navam, just as a quick follow-up on the model considerations. When I look at the RPO, I mean, I see it kind of — I see softness there. I see it sort of falling off trend. I just mean sequentially, it’s still quite good year-over-year. Is there anything notable there in terms of were there any down sells? I mean cancellations, you said they were not pricing concessions, but there were some moving pieces with all the open two food stuff. Was there anything unusual that might have impacted that? Or is it just kind of lingering of some of the tougher buying behavior?
Navam Welihinda: Yes. I think it’s mostly the buying behavior. You talked about markets. It’s deal volume being up, but at smaller deal sizes, which causes NDR to go down. And that’s what’s impacting your RPO rate. So still strong from a growth perspective year-to-year, still long commitments from our customers. And we’re feeling good about RPO, but it’s mostly the smaller deal volume and combined with larger amounts of deals happening.
Mark Murphy: Understood. Thank you.
Alex Kurtz: All right. Thanks, Mark. Next question.
Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question will come from the line of Alex Zukin from Wolfe Research. Your line is open.
Alex Zukin: Hi, guys. Thanks for taking the question. I’m going to push a little bit more on this because it’s hard to reconcile three numbers for us. On the one hand, we have the guide for next quarter at 10%. We have CRPO bookings at 3% this quarter, and we have a consensus estimate for growth for next year at 18%. I completely understand the commentary about smaller deal sizes and a larger volume of deals, but can you dimensionalize both of those attributes, like how much more volume are you seeing? How much smaller are the deal sizes, when does an NRR bottom because this would be a good time to maybe just help us understand, is that 10% the right jumping off point as we think about next year, is there an acceleration curve baked into next year based on your conviction level around upselling on some of these — this larger volume of lands, give us a little bit of color so we can kind of model this out.
Navam Welihinda: Yes, thanks Alex. I think a lot of your questions came out around sort of our — the view of ’25. And I think the only thing I can say at this point is we’re seeing good contract activity at the smaller sizes, which means that people still believe in our software and are designing us in, right? What we haven’t seen, to Dave’s point earlier, is buying behavior changes, and we’re operating under that assumption until we see it, which means that we aren’t forecasting anything beyond what we see. So we got to execute Q4 first, and we’ll give you our ’25 view in Q1 when we normally do.
Alex Zukin: Okay. Understood. And I guess, maybe, Dave, how much of the — how should we think about execution here and some of the new sales strategies, either making this — pushing this faster or making it actually go slower? Like is that a tailwind or a headwind to realizing to getting back to some of those larger deal conversations or dynamics over the next few quarters?
Dave McJannet: Got it. Thanks. I think you’re sort of asking just sort of what’s the implication of some of the modification for go-to-market approach on that model. And I would just — I’d come back to now the fact that we brought in a new President of field operations, as you know, as Susan St. Ledger has brought a bunch of simplification and rigor and efficiency to what we’re doing. At the same time, these are infrastructure sales cycles. And so I would expect the impact of that to be felt in the coming quarters, not immediately. Super excited about the modifications there. She just brought on some strong folks and she’s been a great partner. But I would really expect her impact to be felt over the future quarters as opposed to this quarter and the next.
Alex Kurtz: Thanks Alex.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] Our next question will come from the line of Nick Altmann from Scotiabank. Your line is open.
Nick Altmann: Awesome. Thanks guys. Can you just give a little bit of an update on the revenue or the bookings mix between Terraform and Vault? And maybe just provide us some directional color around the growth rates there. through 2023. And then just maybe on the other side of that, can you just talk about how some of those mix shift dynamics between Terraform and Vault are sort of playing into the near-term go-to-market strategy, the product’s road map, and how you guys are thinking about navigating 2024.
Dave McJannet: Maybe I’ll start with that one. This is Dave. Thanks for that. So I think I would just decompose our portfolio into two basic lifecycle solutions. One is around infrastructure lifecycle and the other one is around the security lifecycle. And obviously, Terraform’s aligned in the infrastructure cycle, Vault and boundary aligned with the security lifecycle. I would say there’s equivalent interest really in both. And I’d say, over time, those business have been very, very consistently similar. When organizations get more mature in their operations, those two concerns get combined into a common platform engineering function, just to put the pieces together. But our fundamental consumers is [Indiscernible] and of person and a security person. So that dynamic is unchanged. And I think security lifecycle of is the way you think about it and maybe Navam comment is the financial aspect.
Navam Welihinda: Yes. I think from a net new ACV perspective, I think there are roughly equal give or take, a 200,000 one way or the other on the 2. The security lifecycle products are slightly larger so that the infrastructure products grow slightly faster at a smaller base, but they combine — make up the majority of our revenue.
