SEC Company Response from NEIGHBORHOOD INTELLIGENCE, (NXH) — Dec 8, 2025
NEIGHBORHOOD INTELLIGENCE, INC.
Date: Dec. 8, 2025 · CIK: 0001130713 · Accession: 0001130713-25-000082
AI Filing Summary & Sentiment
File numbers found in text: 001-41850
Referenced dates: November 18, 2025
Letter
VIA EDGAR United States Securities and Exchange Commission Division of Corporation Finance Office of Trade & Services Form 10-K for Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2024 Item 2.02 Form 8-K Dated October 27, 2025 Responses Dated September 29, 2025 and September 18, 2025 File No. 001-41850
Dear Ms. Nakada and Mr. Decker:
We respectfully set forth below our responses to the comments of the staff (the “Staff”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) communicated in its letter addressed to Adrianne Lee, President and Chief Financial Officer of Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. f/k/a Beyond, Inc. (“we,” “us,” “our,” or the “Company”), dated November 18, 2025 (the “November 18 Comment Letter”). For ease of reference, each of the Staff’s comments are reproduced below in bold and italics, and are followed by the Company’s responses.
Form 10-K for Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2024
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Consolidated Financial Statements
Note 22. Other Expense, Net, page 77
Staff Comment:
1. Refer to prior comment 3. You indicate in your response that the errors in multiple reporting periods were related to four discrete items. As the quantitative magnitude of the errors increase, it is increasingly difficult for qualitative factors to overcome the quantitative significance of the errors. Please tell us in further detail how you determined the qualitative factors overcame the quantitative significance of the errors to your Operating Income (Loss) in each of the following periods:
•fiscal year ended December 31, 2023,
•the three and six months ended June 30, 2025 and
•the three and six months ended June 30, 2024.
Also, it appears in your quantitative analysis that you have reflected the $10.3 million error related to the gain on sale of Wamsutta IP in the three months ended March 31, 2024, rather than in the three months ended June 30, 2024. Please revise your quantitative analysis or advise. Furthermore, tell us whether there were other immaterial passed adjustments that would impact Operating Income (Loss) in any of these periods. If so, factor these other immaterial passed adjustments into an aggregate effect quantitative analysis and provide it in addition to the revised quantitative analysis of just the four discrete items. Refer to ASC 250-10-S99-1.
Company Response:
We respectfully acknowledge the Staff’s comment. The Company does not assert that it has experienced quantitatively large errors that are immaterial due to the absence of the non-exclusive qualitative factors listed in SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99, Materiality (“SAB 99”). Instead, the Company has analyzed all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the error, in accordance with the Staff’s guidance in SAB 99 and SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108, Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements (“SAB 108”), and has concluded that there is no substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would consider the error important in making investment decisions or assessing the Company’s performance.
Executive Summary
As the Staff emphasizes in SAB 99, materiality requires a holistic analysis of all surrounding facts and circumstances, including the factual context in which financial statement users would view the financial statement item in question:
Materiality concerns the significance of an item to users of a registrant’s financial statements. A matter is “material” if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would consider it important. . . .
The omission or misstatement of an item in a financial report is material if, in the light of surrounding circumstances, the magnitude of the item is such that it is probable that the judgment of a reasonable person relying upon the report would have been changed or influenced by the inclusion or correction of the item.
This formulation in the accounting literature is in substance identical to the formulation used by the courts in interpreting the federal securities laws. The Supreme Court has held that a fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that the . . . fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the “total mix” of information made available.
Under the governing principles, an assessment of materiality requires that one views the facts in the context of the “surrounding circumstances,” as the accounting literature puts it, or the “total mix” of information, in the words of the Supreme Court. In the context of a misstatement of a financial statement item, while the “total mix” includes the size in numerical or percentage terms of the misstatement, it also includes the factual context in which the user of financial statements would view the financial statement item.
In particular, the errors in question here were classification errors under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) that placed gains on sale of intangible assets and write-downs of assets held for sale in Loss Before Income Taxes instead of in Operating Income (Loss). Importantly, the errors had no effect on total Net Income (Loss), which remained unchanged. Under these unique circumstances, the errors did not alter the total mix of information from the perspective of a reasonable investor when analyzed under the framework outlined in SAB 99. The Company’s analysis considered both quantitative and qualitative factors, including the lack of impact on Net Income (Loss), the absence of any effect on key trends, user focus on different profitability metrics, the non-recurring nature of the errors, and transparent supplemental disclosure of the underlying transactions and the correction of the immaterial misstatement. Moreover, the potential magnitude of the errors was inherently limited by the nature of the transactions in question, as discussed in response to comment 3 below.
Total Mix of Information
As noted above, SAB 99 defines materiality by reference to whether there is a substantial likelihood that the misstatement would have changed or influenced the judgment of a reasonable investor based on the “total mix” of information. SAB 99 emphasizes that assessment of materiality requires consideration of both quantitative and
qualitative factors, that magnitude alone is generally insufficient, and that exclusive reliance on “any percentage or numerical threshold has no basis in the accounting literature or the law” (emphasis added).
Applying SAB 99 and SAB 108 to a misclassification that does not change Net Income (Loss) requires assessing whether, in context, reclassifying these amounts within the income statement’s subtotals would realistically affect a reasonable person’s decision-making.
Classification Error Without Effect on Net Income (Loss)
The identified items were discrete gains and losses related to a held-for-sale corporate headquarters and sales of specific intellectual property. The related errors were due to a misinterpretation of presentation guidance that resulted in recording these amounts below Operating Income (Loss) rather than within it. The Company’s analysis confirms the items were one-time in nature and not related to core operations.
Crucially, the reclassifications affect only the location within the statement of operations—between operating and non-operating subtotals—and have no effect on Net Income (Loss) for any period. From an investor’s perspective, regardless of the line classification, the GAAP earnings measure remains identical. These items were also fully disclosed in the Company’s financial statements and therefore did not alter the total mix of information from the perspective of a reasonable investor.
Small quantitative impact relative to key line items
The Company’s SAB 99 analysis found that the quantitative impact of the error was immaterial in relation to the scale of the business. The misclassified amounts, evaluated relative to Revenue, never exceeded 1.7% for any fiscal year and never exceeded 6.7% for any fiscal quarter. More specifically, the misclassified amounts, evaluated relative to Revenue, never exceeded 2.6% for any period that the Staff inquired about in the November 18 Comment Letter:
•for the three months ended December 31, 2023, the misclassified amount was 6.7% of Revenue.
•for the year ended December 31, 2023, the misclassified amount was 1.7% of Revenue.
•for the three months ended June 30, 2025, the misclassified amount was 1.9% of Revenue.
•for the six months ended June 30, 2025, the misclassified amount was 1.1% of Revenue.
•for the three months ended June 30, 2024, the misclassified amount was 2.6% of Revenue.
•for the six months ended June 30, 2024, the misclassified amount was 1.3% of Revenue.
Moreover, the error had no effect on Net Income (Loss) for any period. As a result, the error did not result in crossing any significant quantitative thresholds (e.g., changing a Net Loss to Net Income), nor did the misclassification affect the Company’s relevant per-share metrics, covenants, reporting ratios, or other key metrics.
No Change to Trends, Expectations, or Key Metrics
The error did not affect, mask, or alter trends in the Company’s performance or profitability, nor did it change Operating Loss to Operating Income or vice versa, across any of the affected annual or quarterly periods.
The Company operates in a low-margin ecommerce environment where investors and analysts emphasize Net Revenue, Gross Margin, Net Income (Loss), Adjusted EBITDA, Income (Loss) Per Share, and cash balances in forming judgments. The error had no impact on any of the foregoing.
Moreover, sell-side analyst coverage of the Company focuses on Net Income (Loss) and related profitability expectations. Analysts treat the discrete transactions at issue as one‑time items excluded from forecast models and consensus expectations, further indicating no change to the total mix of information relevant to investment decisions.
The Company has also not discussed, nor has it received any questions regarding Operating Income (Loss) on any of its quarterly earnings calls for the periods impacted. Even after explicitly identifying the errors in question in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2025 and updating its presentation accordingly, the Company has to date not received any questions or comments from investors on this topic, which supports the fact that a reasonable person would not consider this change important in making investment decisions or assessing the Company’s performance.
Moreover, the Company notes that there was no impact on segment reporting (single segment), compliance with covenants or regulatory requirements, or compensation metrics—each of which SAB 99 identifies as qualitative factors that could elevate an otherwise small error to materiality.
Taken together, and given that the Company has already disclosed the errors and its updated presentation and has received no related investor questions or comments, these factors demonstrate that these errors would not affect a reasonable person’s judgment regarding the financial statements. The Company has concluded that whether these discrete, one-time items are presented above or below the operating subtotal, given the lack of effect on the key performance measures investors use, these errors are not viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the “total mix” of information made available.
Transparent Disclosure of Underlying Transactions
The underlying transactions (corporate headquarters write-downs and intellectual property sales), amounts, and affected line items were clearly described by the Company, including in the Company’s financial statement notes, and for the more significant transactions, via Current Reports on Form 8-K and press releases. This transparent disclosure ensures that the errors had no effect on the total mix of information as a result of the classification choice.
Topic Publicly Filed or Furnished Disclosure
Sale of Corporate headquarters •Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Commission on February 23, 2024.
•Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Commission on May 8, 2024.
•Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Commission on July 31, 2024.
•Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on September 17, 2024.
•Earnings Release furnished under Item 2.02 of the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on October 24, 2024.
•Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Commission on October 25, 2024.
•Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on December 20, 2024.
•Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Commission on February 25, 2025.
•Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Commission on October 27, 2025.
Sale of Wamsutta intellectual property •Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on April 18, 2024.
•Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Commission on May 8, 2024.
•Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Commission on July 31, 2024.
•Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Commission on October 24, 2024.
•Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Commission on February 25, 2025.
•Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Commission on October 27, 2025.
Sale of Zulily intellectual property •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Commission on April 29, 2025.
•Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Commission on July 29, 2025.
•Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Commission on October 27, 2025.
Sale of Canadian intellectual property •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Commission on July 29, 2025.
•Earnings Release furnished under Item 2.02 of the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on October 27, 2025.
•Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Commission on October 27, 2025.
Alignment with Performance Measures
Management evaluates performance and allocates resources using metrics such Net Revenue, Gross Margin, and cash generation—consistent with how market participants assess this issuer. Because the misclassification did not affect Net Income (Loss), the error does alter the total mix of information from the perspective of a reasonable investor.
Quantitative Analysis of Aggregate and Individual Effects
In response to the November 18 Comment Letter and to reflect the $10.3 million error related to the gain on sale of Wamsutta intellectual property in the six months ended June 30, 2024, rather than in the three months ended March 31, 2024, we have revised our quantitative analysis below. We respectfully note that even taking into account such additional immaterial adjustments for the periods inquired about in the November 18 Comment Letter, and even on an aggregate basis, the misclassified amounts, evaluated relative to revenue, never exceeded 1.7% on an annual basis and never exceeded 6.7% in any quarter.
Operating I
Show Raw Text
CORRESP 1 filename1.htm Document Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. 433 W. Ascension Way, 3rd Floor Murray, Utah 84123 December 8, 2025 VIA EDGAR United States Securities and Exchange Commission Division of Corporation Finance Office of Trade & Services 100 F Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20549 Attn: Keira Nakada and Rufus Decker Re: Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. Form 10-K for Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2024 Item 2.02 Form 8-K Dated October 27, 2025 Responses Dated September 29, 2025 and September 18, 2025 File No. 001-41850 Dear Ms. Nakada and Mr. Decker: We respectfully set forth below our responses to the comments of the staff (the “Staff”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) communicated in its letter addressed to Adrianne Lee, President and Chief Financial Officer of Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. f/k/a Beyond, Inc. (“we,” “us,” “our,” or the “Company”), dated November 18, 2025 (the “November 18 Comment Letter”). For ease of reference, each of the Staff’s comments are reproduced below in bold and italics, and are followed by the Company’s responses. Form 10-K for Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2024 Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data Consolidated Financial Statements Note 22. Other Expense, Net, page 77 Staff Comment: 1. Refer to prior comment 3. You indicate in your response that the errors in multiple reporting periods were related to four discrete items. As the quantitative magnitude of the errors increase, it is increasingly difficult for qualitative factors to overcome the quantitative significance of the errors. Please tell us in further detail how you determined the qualitative factors overcame the quantitative significance of the errors to your Operating Income (Loss) in each of the following periods: •fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, •the three and six months ended June 30, 2025 and •the three and six months ended June 30, 2024. Also, it appears in your quantitative analysis that you have reflected the $10.3 million error related to the gain on sale of Wamsutta IP in the three months ended March 31, 2024, rather than in the three months ended June 30, 2024. Please revise your quantitative analysis or advise. Furthermore, tell us whether there were other immaterial passed adjustments that would impact Operating Income (Loss) in any of these periods. If so, factor these other immaterial passed adjustments into an aggregate effect quantitative analysis and provide it in addition to the revised quantitative analysis of just the four discrete items. Refer to ASC 250-10-S99-1. Company Response: We respectfully acknowledge the Staff’s comment. The Company does not assert that it has experienced quantitatively large errors that are immaterial due to the absence of the non-exclusive qualitative factors listed in SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99, Materiality (“SAB 99”). Instead, the Company has analyzed all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the error, in accordance with the Staff’s guidance in SAB 99 and SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108, Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements (“SAB 108”), and has concluded that there is no substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would consider the error important in making investment decisions or assessing the Company’s performance. Executive Summary As the Staff emphasizes in SAB 99, materiality requires a holistic analysis of all surrounding facts and circumstances, including the factual context in which financial statement users would view the financial statement item in question: Materiality concerns the significance of an item to users of a registrant’s financial statements. A matter is “material” if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would consider it important. . . . The omission or misstatement of an item in a financial report is material if, in the light of surrounding circumstances, the magnitude of the item is such that it is probable that the judgment of a reasonable person relying upon the report would have been changed or influenced by the inclusion or correction of the item. This formulation in the accounting literature is in substance identical to the formulation used by the courts in interpreting the federal securities laws. The Supreme Court has held that a fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that the . . . fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the “total mix” of information made available. Under the governing principles, an assessment of materiality requires that one views the facts in the context of the “surrounding circumstances,” as the accounting literature puts it, or the “total mix” of information, in the words of the Supreme Court. In the context of a misstatement of a financial statement item, while the “total mix” includes the size in numerical or percentage terms of the misstatement, it also includes the factual context in which the user of financial statements would view the financial statement item. In particular, the errors in question here were classification errors under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) that placed gains on sale of intangible assets and write-downs of assets held for sale in Loss Before Income Taxes instead of in Operating Income (Loss). Importantly, the errors had no effect on total Net Income (Loss), which remained unchanged. Under these unique circumstances, the errors did not alter the total mix of information from the perspective of a reasonable investor when analyzed under the framework outlined in SAB 99. The Company’s analysis considered both quantitative and qualitative factors, including the lack of impact on Net Income (Loss), the absence of any effect on key trends, user focus on different profitability metrics, the non-recurring nature of the errors, and transparent supplemental disclosure of the underlying transactions and the correction of the immaterial misstatement. Moreover, the potential magnitude of the errors was inherently limited by the nature of the transactions in question, as discussed in response to comment 3 below. Total Mix of Information As noted above, SAB 99 defines materiality by reference to whether there is a substantial likelihood that the misstatement would have changed or influenced the judgment of a reasonable investor based on the “total mix” of information. SAB 99 emphasizes that assessment of materiality requires consideration of both quantitative and qualitative factors, that magnitude alone is generally insufficient, and that exclusive reliance on “any percentage or numerical threshold has no basis in the accounting literature or the law” (emphasis added). Applying SAB 99 and SAB 108 to a misclassification that does not change Net Income (Loss) requires assessing whether, in context, reclassifying these amounts within the income statement’s subtotals would realistically affect a reasonable person’s decision-making. Classification Error Without Effect on Net Income (Loss) The identified items were discrete gains and losses related to a held-for-sale corporate headquarters and sales of specific intellectual property. The related errors were due to a misinterpretation of presentation guidance that resulted in recording these amounts below Operating Income (Loss) rather than within it. The Company’s analysis confirms the items were one-time in nature and not related to core operations. Crucially, the reclassifications affect only the location within the statement of operations—between operating and non-operating subtotals—and have no effect on Net Income (Loss) for any period. From an investor’s perspective, regardless of the line classification, the GAAP earnings measure remains identical. These items were also fully disclosed in the Company’s financial statements and therefore did not alter the total mix of information from the perspective of a reasonable investor. Small quantitative impact relative to key line items The Company’s SAB 99 analysis found that the quantitative impact of the error was immaterial in relation to the scale of the business. The misclassified amounts, evaluated relative to Revenue, never exceeded 1.7% for any fiscal year and never exceeded 6.7% for any fiscal quarter. More specifically, the misclassified amounts, evaluated relative to Revenue, never exceeded 2.6% for any period that the Staff inquired about in the November 18 Comment Letter: •for the three months ended December 31, 2023, the misclassified amount was 6.7% of Revenue. •for the year ended December 31, 2023, the misclassified amount was 1.7% of Revenue. •for the three months ended June 30, 2025, the misclassified amount was 1.9% of Revenue. •for the six months ended June 30, 2025, the misclassified amount was 1.1% of Revenue. •for the three months ended June 30, 2024, the misclassified amount was 2.6% of Revenue. •for the six months ended June 30, 2024, the misclassified amount was 1.3% of Revenue. Moreover, the error had no effect on Net Income (Loss) for any period. As a result, the error did not result in crossing any significant quantitative thresholds (e.g., changing a Net Loss to Net Income), nor did the misclassification affect the Company’s relevant per-share metrics, covenants, reporting ratios, or other key metrics. No Change to Trends, Expectations, or Key Metrics The error did not affect, mask, or alter trends in the Company’s performance or profitability, nor did it change Operating Loss to Operating Income or vice versa, across any of the affected annual or quarterly periods. The Company operates in a low-margin ecommerce environment where investors and analysts emphasize Net Revenue, Gross Margin, Net Income (Loss), Adjusted EBITDA, Income (Loss) Per Share, and cash balances in forming judgments. The error had no impact on any of the foregoing. Moreover, sell-side analyst coverage of the Company focuses on Net Income (Loss) and related profitability expectations. Analysts treat the discrete transactions at issue as one‑time items excluded from forecast models and consensus expectations, further indicating no change to the total mix of information relevant to investment decisions. The Company has also not discussed, nor has it received any questions regarding Operating Income (Loss) on any of its quarterly earnings calls for the periods impacted. Even after explicitly identifying the errors in question in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2025 and updating its presentation accordingly, the Company has to date not received any questions or comments from investors on this topic, which supports the fact that a reasonable person would not consider this change important in making investment decisions or assessing the Company’s performance. Moreover, the Company notes that there was no impact on segment reporting (single segment), compliance with covenants or regulatory requirements, or compensation metrics—each of which SAB 99 identifies as qualitative factors that could elevate an otherwise small error to materiality. Taken together, and given that the Company has already disclosed the errors and its updated presentation and has received no related investor questions or comments, these factors demonstrate that these errors would not affect a reasonable person’s judgment regarding the financial statements. The Company has concluded that whether these discrete, one-time items are presented above or below the operating subtotal, given the lack of effect on the key performance measures investors use, these errors are not viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the “total mix” of information made available. Transparent Disclosure of Underlying Transactions The underlying transactions (corporate headquarters write-downs and intellectual property sales), amounts, and affected line items were clearly described by the Company, including in the Company’s financial statement notes, and for the more significant transactions, via Current Reports on Form 8-K and press releases. This transparent disclosure ensures that the errors had no effect on the total mix of information as a result of the classification choice. Topic Publicly Filed or Furnished Disclosure Sale of Corporate headquarters •Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Commission on February 23, 2024. •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Commission on May 8, 2024. •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Commission on July 31, 2024. •Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on September 17, 2024. •Earnings Release furnished under Item 2.02 of the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on October 24, 2024. •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Commission on October 25, 2024. •Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on December 20, 2024. •Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Commission on February 25, 2025. •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Commission on October 27, 2025. Sale of Wamsutta intellectual property •Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on April 18, 2024. •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Commission on May 8, 2024. •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Commission on July 31, 2024. •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Commission on October 24, 2024. •Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Commission on February 25, 2025. •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Commission on October 27, 2025. Sale of Zulily intellectual property •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Commission on April 29, 2025. •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Commission on July 29, 2025. •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Commission on October 27, 2025. Sale of Canadian intellectual property •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Commission on July 29, 2025. •Earnings Release furnished under Item 2.02 of the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on October 27, 2025. •Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Commission on October 27, 2025. Alignment with Performance Measures Management evaluates performance and allocates resources using metrics such Net Revenue, Gross Margin, and cash generation—consistent with how market participants assess this issuer. Because the misclassification did not affect Net Income (Loss), the error does alter the total mix of information from the perspective of a reasonable investor. Quantitative Analysis of Aggregate and Individual Effects In response to the November 18 Comment Letter and to reflect the $10.3 million error related to the gain on sale of Wamsutta intellectual property in the six months ended June 30, 2024, rather than in the three months ended March 31, 2024, we have revised our quantitative analysis below. We respectfully note that even taking into account such additional immaterial adjustments for the periods inquired about in the November 18 Comment Letter, and even on an aggregate basis, the misclassified amounts, evaluated relative to revenue, never exceeded 1.7% on an annual basis and never exceeded 6.7% in any quarter. Operating I