And I say that because it’s very easy to do a single shot proteomic, meaning a neat injection in the mass spec, get 500, 600 proteins and to do to that scale. But to do deep proteomic at scale, there is no other solution other than Seer, other than Seer’s Proteograph that scale. And so the papers that are coming to us are all in great journals. And by the way, you and I were in the panel together when I had predicted that by the end of next year, we’re probably going to see the first population scale, deep, unbiased proteomic study get underway. I still believe that’s going to be the case. And that just really falls in the realm of what was not possible now is possible. So I think what I’m excited about seeing is really just the value of the biological insight of this content.
I think that would fundamentally has the potential to fundamentally shape so many changes in medicine and science.
Operator: Our next question comes from Rachel Vatnsdal from JPMorgan.
Marta Nazarovets: This is Marta Nazarovets on for Rachel Vatnsdal from JPMorgan. So you touched a little bit on macro during your prepared remarks, but perhaps you can compare and contrast what you’ve seen in 3Q versus 2Q on the macro front? And then what are you seeing so far in 4Q? Is there any improvement or deterioration or stabilization?
David Horn: So let me take that one. In terms of what we’re seeing just on the macro front, look, I think it continues to be pretty similar throughout. I think the uncertainty is something certainly in the second and third quarter around inflation and the general macro trend of are we going into a recession or are we not, really just caused our customers to kind of elongate their purchase decisions and think about their budgets. I think as we get into the end of the year here, that trend continues certainly on the commercial side where we are seeing customers just be more thoughtful. As we’ve said, certainly, for proven technologies, companies that need another mass spec will go by another mass spec. But for new technologies such as SEER, they’re just more questions that are answered and need to be answered.
And we’ve also seen approvals need more approvers, if you will. And so we continue to see that. I think that’s just the general uncertainty. I think the only thing that may have changed a little bit in the third quarter and fourth quarter was just the uncertainty around the government funding. And so I think, again, we don’t have much of any exposure around that, but we do have some. And again, I think that’s just the availability of the funding will — is the government going to shut down or not shut down. It does create an impact on some of that funding. So again, I think it’s been pretty steady, if you will, in terms of the uncertainty. And hopefully, as we move in through the fourth quarter and into the new year, some of that gets resolved both in the macroeconomic, but also the government funding circles as well.
Marta Nazarovets: Okay. And then on your updated guidance, you’re now expecting it to come in towards the lower half of the prior into 18. So can you maybe unpack for us what are the updated assumptions for 4Q? And are you assuming any type of 4Q budget flush in light of the uncertain macro?
David Horn: Yes. In terms of the — I think the guide to the lower half, I think again, it’s just something around the — really the uncertainty, if you will, of just for us, given the size of the numbers we’re talking about here. Again, as we’ve said, 1 or 2 deals can be the difference there. And so again, I think we’re just trying to — as we see and look out for the balance of the quarter here, just some of that uncertainty creeping in, as I just talked about. And so if a deal goes one way or the other, that’s the difference there. And so we’re just trying to be mindful and thoughtful around that in terms of that overall uncertainty. And so I think that, that’s really what’s driving it is something just to kind of be mindful. I think that’s really, really what we’re seeing.
