Yeah. Pretty close. I mean, I think I think it is within maybe 30 days or so of what we are originally thinking. So I think that is pretty consistent. They have been. You know, we have been meeting with them regularly, working through looking at WaferPak designs on multiple different devices. Part of it was we were not even sure which device they wanted to do the call it, the production benchmark or production evaluation on. You know, they chose the 1 that we did the original benchmark on. But we were not even sure if it was gonna be that 1 or 1 of the others. And so think we are working through that, and you know, things take time. People are very busy right now, as you can imagine. And, you know, in the in the background, we are fully committed to work through these things. Some of the stuff I alluded to, and I am just not gonna go into the detail here, related to some of the new features that we have in the system that we have actually patented and, have not gone. You know, without NDAs, we are just not talking about some of those features. We are just. We are implementing those in the background and doing it So that. Their schedule has not slowed us down on that at all. But, again, I would think, you know, somewhere in that first couple few months of the quarter, they will have seen enough to trigger kinda next steps. Maybe it will go sooner. We will see. But you know, if we if we can be successful at this, and, you know, they continue to engage with us on the different devices they are about. that is fantastic. Perfect. And for my follow-up, just on competition, you know, 1 of the larger level test suppliers recently introduced what they call, you know, AI burn-in capabilities. It does not seem really comparable to what Aehr offers, but, you know, maybe talk us through how their approach differs from, you know, FOX's accelerated life screen. Okay. Well, they are within so first of all, as every. Everyone understand what they are what. When people talk about screening and burn in, all semiconductors are tested. They are tested good from bad, and they may be tested for know, how good they are, speed grade or whatever. And there is platforms out there, the 2 dominant platforms for all the AI high performance computing platforms are the 93 thousand from Advantest I always remind people that came from my old company from at HP, Agilent, Verigy. 1 of the greatest acquisition ever was when they bought Verigy because it is done so well. So Very well for them. And the UltraFLEX from Teradyne. who is been gaining market share. But those are the 2 players. I. If you told me it was 99%, I believe you. K? All testing is done at wafer and at a package level. When the device is good at the very end, k, a customer will take that, put it into a computer, put that into a rack, and then ship it to the end customer, you know, a data center. But what they are finding is those devices would fail early days, weeks later. So what first was happening is the data center. The suppliers of the racks you know, Computer Micro and Super Micro and these guys, they would actually do a burn in of the rack. Run it for a week, to screen out infant mortality, they would call it, of the processors that were failing. And there were public comments by Jensen and others to say, listen, And a big white paper that was done by Meta that was talked about the failures that were happening in the data centers and how the people needed to implement burn in and screening. These are old. These are techniques that have been used for years and years with the likes of Intel and AMD. For screening their processors but all of the new processor companies were fabless going through TSMC and did not have any of the infrastructure in place. And so people are scrambling, what do I do? Because I do not wanna do it at the rack level. So 1 of the first things they did is they actually looked at what are called SLT machines. So in addition to the final test systems I described from Advantest and Teradyne, there is another insertion called an SLT insertion, which for all intents and purposes is to boot up the device in its native application. Think of the. On its own motherboard. And there is companies like Cohu, Chroma, AEM, Teradyne has just introduced 1, which is what I think you are alluding to. With their Titan I think Titan or Triton, I forget which 1, platform which is an SLT machine, which is at speed, high speed, intended to look and feel like the actual application and that has. You know, they have great thermals on it, and they have a. ATE performance, but done for a specific insertion. Now you could do a burn in on that thing. They typically are very expensive platforms. That have high speed digital signals, etcetera. And but 1 of the challenges is the burn in condition for a accelerating these infant mortalities is not the same as the user mode. We actually bring the devices up to much higher temperatures than they run-in the normal user environment. To basically strain them and age them So within 20. You know, 3 hours, we might make the device look like it is you know, several months old. Or more. And we can correlate to screen out those infant mortality rates bringing the devices up to very high voltages and very high temperatures extremely accurately and basically precisely age them 3 months, not 3 years. K? So we do not wanna wear them out. And so that is what we do with our burn in insertion. But there have been several companies out there that have talked about trying to use SLT derivatives system level test derivatives, to try and do the burn When we are engaged in package level burn in, deals right now, which there is a number of them going on, people are not talking to us about the SLT alternatives. They are looking for what they would call a real burn in system like Sonoma that is aimed at addressing those high voltage and high temperatures and massive parallelism at low cost. So we think we have the best package level burn in system on the market with Sonoma. K? But to be fair, there are other customers out there, other companies that make them. And in some cases, 1 of the challenges is they might make 1 for their own use. And they might have an advantage because they have some cost because they build it themselves. They may not be able to hit our performance, but maybe they are willing to make some of the other technical trade offs. So in package level burn in, we actually see that business growing and growing. And we think that the real competition is not really an SLT machine. K? But more interestingly, the real competition to package level is the Fox system from us. The wafer level system provides capabilities both technically We can do things at wafer level that nobody including us can do at package level. And that. We are proving that to customers through these benchmarks which would get a customer to want to shift from package level to wafer level. And in that case, the only alternative unless you wanna violate our IP and we ferocious will defend it. Is to try and use a standard program on an ATE system coming down and trying to test as many devices as you can at a time to try and get the cost effectiveness out. So what we are able to do is we are often testing a quarter of a wafer at a time of all the processors, which people think is nuts considering that the 93 k and the UltraFLEX are typically testing 1 device at a time. So we are testing 1 quarter of all the dye in parallel on 9 dye. At 9 wafers at a time. Sometimes, by the way, we may test 1 eighth or something. But we are able to do that very cost effectively. And by doing it at wafer level, the cost of test at wafer level is a fraction of the yield improvement by moving it to wafer level. So we think that, ultimately, that is where people will shift. And it is exciting and scary as, you know, you throw a party, and what happens if every single person comes? But that is kinda where we are at and it is. We have a great front row seat using the Sonoma platform to have a conversation about people's next generation devices that in some cases, they say, you know what? We need to go to Fox by the time that part comes out. So we have a different. We could. We are playing with a different set of set of deck of cards, if you will, than our competitors are. Thank you for that detailed answer. Appreciate it. You are welcome.
