Paul Shawah: Yes, so I would think of it as maybe three timeframes, before the migration, during the migration and after the migration, Certainly, before the migration, the way we’re planning this, the way we’ve designed this is that new capabilities, new products that they do, we’re going to migrate those automatically for customers. So we want customers to continue to innovate, and we’ll move that innovation over within the Vault automatically. So that’s before then during, it can be a small to a larger project, depending on the size of the company or their complexity. That may be a little bit of a distraction during that period of time. And then certainly after is an opportunity for even more innovation. So that’s kind of generally how I would think about it. It’s going to be — it will be a project just like any other kind of project.
Stan Berenshteyn: Got it. And then maybe a quick question on R&D solutions. So it looks like this year, you added close to $220 million in revenue within R&D. Can you just share with us what percent of that amount came from top 20 pharma? And what percent came from pre-revenue biotech? Thanks.
Brent Bowman: Yes, we’re not going to break out that level of detail. But if you think about where our installed base and we get a large portion of our revenue from the enterprise and our top accounts. But — so that’s largely contributing. But we do have a good cross-section of customers that buy across the whole R&D solution set. So we’re pleased with the success and how we’re executing there.
Stan Berenshteyn: Great, thanks so much.
Operator: We’ll go to Jack Wallace, Guggenheim Securities.
Jack Wallace: Hey, thanks for taking my questions and starting to advance for the boring accounting questions. here we go.
Brent Bowman: So this one for Peter, you’re saying then, right? This is for Peter, the boring accounting question.
Jack Wallace: Exactly. So I want to just get a better understanding of the mechanics of the TFC impact. And I appreciate we had a couple of bigger deals that signed in 4Q and some anticipated it sounds like they’re going to sign the rest of the deal. So the fundamentals are strong, but that means we’re going to have less of an impact in the early years of those contracts on the revenue line. I think I get that part. The part I’m a little bit unsure about is the $52 million impact in the first quarter. So using simple math on subscription line, the $460 million from 4Q less the $52 million less the $8 million from FX, gets you to $405 million after you add, let’s say, $5 million sequential. Now that $52 million of TFC, why doesn’t that get annualized into a $208 million headwind for the year. If I’m thinking about that resetting the revenue base lower again, without the benefit of being able to recognize unbilled AR intra-year?
Brent Bracelin: I mean the way to think about it is, so post-TFC world, you think about for the year, fiscal year ’24, how much revenue would have been above billings? You think about it from that perspective, simply in that year. So there’s the amount that relates to existing deals, and then there is the amount related to the $20 million, the deals we would have closed. So that you’re normalizing back to that rule where billings and revenue need to be aligned. When you aggregate that all up for the full-year, it’s $95 million. And the amount that impacts Q1 is $52 million, largely the unbilled AR portion. But that’s at the highest, most simple way. That’s how I think about it.
Jack Wallace: Got it. And just to clarify, the unbilled AR portion, that would be a — I guess what you’re saying, a onetime impact, to the 1Q, your revenue number that then say Q2 steps back by that amount or maybe something less than that?
