Brad Gray : Yes. I heard the question . So, we feel really great about the position of CosMx and the durable advantages that it has. I mean, I think, first, we picked the RNA plex at the where we are currently market leading and we expect to remain market leading. So, we do a thousand different RNAs in once, most of the other competing imagers do about half that. The second area we distinguish ourselves is on protein imaging where we’ll launch with a 60 plex offering and we’ve demonstrated already an ability to go to 100 plex, that is a feature that most of the other imagers are not able to offer their customers. So, we feel very good about the competitive profile of CosMx. And I think so far we have a very good win rate in those instances where customers are evaluating our offerings against others.
Unidentified Analyst: Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes Go head.
Brad Gray: Go ahead, operator. You broke up a little bit there.
Operator: Sorry about that. The next question comes from the line of Catherine Schulte with Baird. Your line is now open.
Catherine Schulte: Hey, guys. Hey, guys. Thanks for the question. First, I think you said that Can you hear me?
Brad Gray: Yes. We can, Catherine.
Catherine Schulte: Perfect. I think you said the number of active nCounter’s is remaining about flat as new systems are being offset by older systems that are being tired, do you have any sense for why these systems are being retired? Is there a replacement cycle dynamic within accounts or users stopping encounter based research? And if so, why?
Brad Gray: Well, the two major reasons that we see people no longer use our nCounters are one, the individual who purchased that nCounter and who was responsible for experimentation on it moves from one job to another. And two, the science moves in a different direction perhaps away from both gene expression to some other area of science. And when we look back across our installed base and we look at where those systems are inactive, it’s highly correlated with the age of the system because as you can imagine, with every cumulative year after instrument has been placed, the cumulative probability of the employee who bought goes up and the cumulative probability of the science going in a different direction goes up. So, there is a life cycle to these systems that’s totally independent of their usable life.
I mean, we have active systems that are around there from 2012 still running assays, but every year, the possibility that the researchers move in a different direction increases.
Catherine Schulte: Got it. And then on pull-through, we’ve heard some of your peers talk about weakness on the consumable side as well just given maybe more pronounced seasonality and inventory work through. So, can you just talk through how activity levels trended throughout the quarter and maybe how October looked just to get a better sense for which of those were transitory and which of those dynamics are likely to stick around?
Brad Gray: Well, we don’t have perfect visibility into activity levels. Our systems are not connected with the telemetry that allows us to monitor their use remotely as some of our competitors are. So, I can’t really speak to that question, Catherine. I think our early October trends are consistent with the guidance that Tom gave, which is to say, we are not expecting a substantial transitory recovery in the fourth quarter and we have not built that to our guidance.
Catherine Schulte: Got it. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Tejas Savant with Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open.
Edmund Debler: Hi, guys. This is Edmund on for Tejas. Thanks for taking the questions. The first question for me is, what’s embedded for your nCounter franchise and your updated guidance? And given some of the dynamics that you observed in the quarter, would thinking about nCounter next year as flat year-over-year be the right way to think about it?
