Yes. So without question, the business that's been the hardest for us to forecast has been Grass Valley for a number of reasons. One, of course, is the market itself is going through a lot of difficulty, a lot of turbulence. You see that with our competitors. And then the other thing is that of all our businesses, it's without question, the most nonlinear. So a lot of our orders and a lot of our revenue come in the last month of the quarter, and we typically don't enter the quarter with a lot of backlog. And that made it substantially more difficult for us to accurately forecast our results, and that is something that we were very good at pre Grass Valley and something that's been frustrating for us and for our investors. So we believe divesting Grass Valley will substantially help us there. Now of course, as you know, our other businesses don't necessarily have a lot of backlog either, but the market conditions are more understandable and far less turbulent, and therefore, we think our ability to forecast will improve. As it relates to the profile of the business, we're expecting the organic growth profile to improve. As I mentioned with Noelle, we're forecasting, or I should say we're guiding 3% on the high end organic growth, excluding changes in channel inventory. I would say in this market environment, that's quite strong. We're expecting that the $40 million of cost reduction will be 200 basis points accretive to EBITDA margins, $0.70 accretive to earnings per share and neutral to free cash flow. So we think that once we get through these changes, we have a business that, from a free cash flow point of view is equivalent, from a margin point of view, is improved, from an organic growth point of view, is improved, and we have a business that's far more predictable. And we think all those things ought to be well received by our shareholders.