Mike Cikos: And I just wanted to see — like one of the things I’m struggling with on my side, and again, it’s probably just a misunderstanding on all of the legal comportment that are involved here. But I know that you guys are saying that this third-party provider was using software for evaluate. I don’t want to butcher it, but I think it was supposed to be
Rukmini Sivaraman: Yes, let me try
Mike Cikos: Yes, and I’m trying to see, is there an impact on revenue as a result of this? Or is it entirely expense base? Because again, I’m trying to get it like, is there potential for this in any way to impact your top-line results? Like you’re giving us the revenue and ACV billings guide, is that untouched by this investigation at this point? And then the follow-up is like, how is it we don’t have the expenses here, but you guys are able to refer the free cash flow. I think that’s what I’m wrestling on my side. And I apologize for the long-winded question, but I just want to make sure I’m being clear.
Rukmini Sivaraman: Yes. Thank you, Mike. So let me try and clarify some of those pieces. So you are correct that we do not believe that this matter has any impact on our topline metrics, specifically revenue, ACV billings, which as you point out, we’ve disclosed and we’re guiding to. So that’s one part of it. And in terms of just — sorry, what was the second part of your question? Mike, I think there was one more question after that.
Mike Cikos: Yes. Yes. So…
Rukmini Sivaraman: On free cash flow, I think, right? Yes.
Mike Cikos: Exactly. Exactly.
Rukmini Sivaraman: Correct. Yes. Sorry about that. So I think on free cash flow, we reported Q2 free cash flow, right? Like that’s the $63 million that we reported out. Now for the full year, I think this is important. So I’m glad you asked the question, Mike, that we are comfortable with the $100 million to $125 million free cash flow for the year after factoring in a potential impact from this third-party software use that we mentioned on the call and the two other items, right? So $33 million, which as you said, a separate matter from a previously outstanding litigation settlement. So that’s $33 million that was not factored in before, and this $12 million of cash usage in Q3 for nonrecurring tax obligations related to a portion of our employee RSUs vesting this month.
Mike Cikos: Okay. Okay. And then maybe, again, this is just me being naive here. There was phrase it how you will, but again, I just want to make sure, with the third-party provider, like how were they supposed to be using the software versus what we’re seeing today as far as its interoperability testing? Again, I just want to make sure I’m aware of like the different nuances here for what’s causing this investigation in the first place.
Rukmini Sivaraman: Yes. Understood, Mike. So let me — so what — this is the software that we were using from a third-party software provider. It was evaluation software intended to be used for evaluation purposes, and instead, it was being used by us for interoperability testing, validation and proofs of concept. So that is the matter that’s being reviewed right now.
Mike Cikos: I see. And so because you — it was intended for evaluation, but instead you guys were using it for interoperability testing and validation because of the different usage of that software, there’s potentially a different cost for what you had been paying that provider. Is that a very simple way of putting that? I know I’m probably mischaracterizing a lot of that.
Rukmini Sivaraman: Yes.
Mike Cikos: Okay. Okay.
