Profluent Bio

Phase A — Understand the business

Lens 1 · Company Overview

What it actually is. Profluent Bio is an AI-first protein-design company — it builds large generative "protein language models" (the ProGen family) that write novel functional proteins from scratch, the way an LLM writes text. Founded 2022 in Emeryville, CA by Ali Madani (CEO) and Alexander Meeske (co-founder/scientific). The thesis in one line: biology is a language, and if scaling laws hold for it the way they hold for text, whoever trains the biggest, best-aligned protein model can design proteins to order across every therapeutic and industrial format.

How it makes money (business model). Profluent is not a traditional drug company that owns and advances its own clinical assets. It is a platform / B2B licensing + partnership business with an unusual open-source funnel layered on top:

1. Strategic pharma partnerships — bespoke protein design for a partner's program, structured as upfront + R&D funding + development/commercial milestones + tiered royalties. The anchor deal is Eli Lilly (custom site-specific recombinases; up to $2.25B in milestones + royalties, announced 2026-04-28).
2. Commercial relationships across industries — named partners include Revvity, Corteva Agriscience, Ensoma, Integrated DNA Technologies (IDT), and The Rett Syndrome Research Trust.
3. Open-source-as-distribution — OpenCRISPR-1 (an AI-designed gene editor) and the planned OpenAntibodies are released royalty-free or for a single upfront fee, seeding adoption and putting Profluent's designs into "thousands of commercial operations, academic researchers, and some of the world's largest pharma companies". The open release is the top of the funnel; the paid partnerships are the monetization.

Key products / "modalities." Gene editors (OpenCRISPR-1), site-specific recombinases (the Lilly modality — large-payload DNA insertion), base editors (Rett/MECP2 program), antibodies (OpenAntibodies), plus enzymes, antigens and other biologic formats. The unifying product is really the model + the data beneath all of them.

Customers / suppliers / competitors.

• Customers: large pharma (Lilly), tools/life-science (Revvity, IDT), ag-bio (Corteva), gene-medicine biotech (Ensoma), patient foundations (Rett Syndrome Research Trust).
• "Suppliers" (a software/data business): compute (GPUs), genomic-sequence data, and wet-lab validation capacity. Inputs are commoditized; the scarce input is proprietary experimental feedback data to align the model.
• Competitors: EvolutionaryScale (ESM3), Isomorphic Labs, Xaira Therapeutics, Generate Biomedicines, Absci, Chai Discovery, Cradle, Basecamp Research (see Lens 7).

Contract structure / payment terms. The pharma model is the classic biotech milestone-heavy structure: small upfront, R&D funding to do the work, then big numbers that only pay out on preclinical → clinical → regulatory → commercial triggers, plus royalties on net sales. Concentration risk is real and rising — Lilly is now the dominant economic relationship, and the headline $2.25B is optionality, not cash until a program is named.

Lens 2 · Supply Chain

For a generative-bio platform the "supply chain" is a data-and-compute pipeline → model → designed sequence → wet-lab validation → partner who develops/sells the product. Named stakeholders along the chain:

• Upstream inputs:
• Genomic-sequence data — Profluent built the CRISPR-Cas Atlas from >26 terabases of genomic data (1.2M CRISPR-Cas operons discovered) and the Profluent Protein Atlas (claimed 115 billion unique proteins, "world's largest protein data resource"). Chokepoint: the proprietary alignment data — the experimental wet-lab results that teach the model which designs actually work — is the genuinely scarce input. Public sequence is not.
• Compute — GPU training (ProGen3 scaled to 46B parameters, 1.5 trillion tokens). Supplier = NVIDIA-class accelerators via cloud; not single-source-differentiated (everyone in the field buys the same chips).
• Wet-lab validation — in-house lab + likely CDMO/CRO partners to synthesize and test designs. Integrated DNA Technologies (IDT) is a named commercial partner and a natural DNA-synthesis supplier/distributor in this chain.
• The company: trains the model, generates candidate sequences, validates a subset experimentally.
• Downstream / end customers:
• Pharma developer — Eli Lilly takes recombinase candidates through research → clinic → market.
• Tools/ag/biotech — Revvity, Corteva, Ensoma embed designed proteins into their own programs.
• Open-source community — academics + companies using OpenCRISPR-1 / OpenAntibodies, who become the lead-gen funnel.

Chokepoints / single-source dependencies: (1) the alignment-data flywheel is the only durable chokepoint, and it is self-built; (2) delivery (AAV capsid size limits) is a hard physical constraint the Rett program explicitly designs around ("compact editor that fits a single AAV"); (3) partner concentration — Lilly is now the load-bearing customer. Names or it didn't happen: Lilly, Revvity, Corteva, Ensoma, IDT, Rett Syndrome Research Trust are the named chain stakeholders.

Lens 3 · Competitive Advantages (moats)

The honest moat assessment — this is the crux of the whole name. Profluent deliberately open-sources its best outputs (OpenCRISPR-1, OpenAntibodies designed to be non-patent-infringing on purpose). That makes the sequence explicitly not the moat. So what is?

1. The data flywheel (the real moat, if any). The Protein Atlas (115B proteins) + CRISPR-Cas Atlas (1.2M operons) + proprietary experimental-validation data create a compounding alignment advantage: more partner programs → more wet-lab feedback → a better-aligned model → more programs. This is a scale/data moat, narrow but compoundable. It is unproven that it is defensible — competitors have their own atlases.
2. Scaling-laws first-mover narrative. Profluent is first to publish compute-optimal scaling laws for sparse protein language models (ProGen3, NeurIPS 2025 Spotlight — top ~3.2% of submissions). If "bigger model = better proteins" holds, capital + compute become the moat — which favors the best-funded, and Profluent ($150M) is out-raised by Xaira ($1B+) and Isomorphic (Alphabet-backed).
3. Validation / credibility moat. Being first to design a functional CRISPR from scratch with AI (Nature, 2025) and first to show LLMs generate functional proteins (Nature Biotech, 2023) is a genuine reputational asset that wins partnerships — the Lilly deal is the proof.
4. Switching costs / bargaining power: Weak today. As a platform vendor to pharma, the partner holds the program economics; Profluent trades platform exclusivity for validation + capital (LucidQuest's exact concern). Bargaining power improves only as multiple pharma bidders compete for the platform.

Verdict on the moat: real but narrow and contested — a data/credibility flywheel, not IP. The open-source strategy is a deliberate bet that distribution + data beats secrecy (the "OpenAI of biology" play), which is brilliant if scaling laws hold and fatal if a better-funded rival's model simply gets bigger.

Lens 4 · Segments

No segment financials are disclosed — Profluent is private and reports no revenue breakout. n/a — private, not disclosed. What can be qualitatively segmented (by modality / end-market), all ``:

Trend & cause: the center of gravity is shifting from open-source demonstrations (2024 OpenCRISPR) → monetized pharma partnerships (2026 Lilly) — i.e., from proving the platform works to capturing value from it. That is the right direction, but it concentrates economics in a single partner before a second whale appears.

---

Phase B — Measure performance (+private + +clinical overlay — funding/valuation + pipeline replace earnings/EPS)

Lens 5 → Funding & Valuation Trajectory (+private swap for "Earnings Result")

Round-by-round, all ``, unaudited:

Reading the trajectory: classic steep step-up — $9M → $35M → $106M, with the lead investor upgrading each round (seed-stage Insight → growth-stage Spark → crossover-grade Altimeter + Bezos Expeditions). The crossover tell: Altimeter is exactly the kind of public-markets-adjacent fund whose entry signals IPO-proximity intent (see Lens 11). Total $150M is modest for the field (cf. Xaira's $1B+) — Profluent is the capital-efficient contender, not the capital-heavy one.

Burn / runway signals: not disclosed. With ~41–44 employees and a $106M fresh raise, runway is plausibly multi-year `` — flagged as estimate only; no disclosed burn. The Lilly upfront + R&D funding materially extends runway by offloading program cost onto the partner.

Lens 5b → Pipeline by Phase (+clinical swap — the asset table)

Profluent has no in-house clinical pipeline — it is a platform, so its "pipeline" is partner programs + open releases. Every program ``:

Probability-of-success: Not formally estimable — these are design programs upstream of even IND. The honest statement: the company has zero assets in clinical trials, so there is no rNPV of a drug — the value is entirely in the platform option (Lens 11). The asset table is a list of partnerships, which is the +private reality.

Lens 6 → Founder/Leadership Signal (+private swap for "Earnings Calls")

No earnings calls exist. The sentiment signal comes from founder interviews, conference talks, and publication cadence:

• Madani's public framing is consistently "scaling laws for biology" and "making biology programmable" — a confident, AI-native, platform-first narrative, reinforced by an Air Street podcast and SynBioBeta/Synthetic Biology Summit appearances.
• Publication cadence is the real "tone" signal and it is accelerating: Nature Biotech (2023, LLMs make proteins) → Nature (2025, AI-designed CRISPR) → NeurIPS 2025 Spotlight (scaling laws). Three top-tier validations in three years is an unusually strong cadence for a 45-person startup.
• What they say more of over time: "scaling laws," "frontier models," "programmable biology," "open." What's newer: monetization language ("commercialize," "milestones," "royalties") arriving with the Lilly deal — the narrative is maturing from science to business.

Lens 7 → Cap Table & Mechanism/Peer Comps (+private + +clinical comps)

Cap-table quality (the syndicate tell): the syndicate is top-tier and improving — Insight (seed) → Spark (A) → Altimeter + Bezos Expeditions (B), with Jeff Dean and OpenAI/Google/Salesforce angels. Altimeter is the crossover-fund signal (IPO-proximity). No public mutual-fund markups/secondary marks are disclosed — n/a — private, not disclosed.

Comps — by category, not P/E (private + platform). Multiples for private peers are not sourced; what is sourced is funding scale and posture:

EV/Sales, P/E, ROE, div-yield: n/a (Profluent private; no audited financials; private-peer multiples not disclosed). Do not fabricate. The one clean comp statement: Profluent (~$1B, $150M raised) is the lean platform play in a field where Xaira/Isomorphic are the capital-heavy asset plays and EvolutionaryScale just left the field via the CZ Biohub acquisition.

Lens 8 → Funding / Product Catalysts (+private swap for "Stock-Price Catalysts")

No stock to move; the equivalent mark-moving events (each materially re-rated the private valuation / narrative), all ``:

• Apr 2024 — OpenCRISPR-1 released (first AI-designed editor in the open) → field-defining credibility.
• Apr 2025 — ProGen3 + scaling-laws claim (Fortune exclusive) → "this scales like LLMs" narrative.
• Jul 2025 — OpenCRISPR-1 published in Nature with head-to-head data vs SpCas9 (lower off-target, lower immunogenicity) → peer-reviewed proof.
• Nov 2025 — $106M Series B, ~$1B valuation, Bezos/Altimeter.
• Nov/Dec 2025 — ProGen3 NeurIPS Spotlight → academic stamp.
• Apr 2026 — Eli Lilly $2.25B recombinase pact → the commercial-validation catalyst that changes the story.

Pattern: the market (private capital) reacts to (1) top-tier publications and (2) blue-chip partner validation — science credibility and pharma endorsement, not revenue (there's no disclosed revenue to react to). The next catalyst that matters is a named Lilly program / IND-enabling milestone.

---

Phase C — Judge people & books

Lens 9 · Management

Ali Madani — Founder & CEO.

1. Track record: Architect of ProGen at Salesforce AI Research — the first demonstration that LLMs generate functional proteins (published in Nature Biotech, 2023). Genuinely first-mover on generative protein design, pre-ChatGPT (started thinking on it in 2020). PhD, UC Berkeley.
2. Tenure & skin in the game: Founder since 2022; founder-CEO equity (specific % n/a — private, not disclosed). Deep domain + ML credibility; the company's reputational moat is largely his publication record.
3. Capital-allocation history: Short but disciplined and capital-efficient — built three Nature/NeurIPS-grade results and a $2.25B pharma pact on only $150M raised and ~45 people. Chose an open-source distribution strategy (unusual, deliberate capital allocation toward adoption over secrecy).
4. Red flags: None disclosed. The watch-item is strategic, not governance: the open-source-everything posture is a bold, unhedged bet (Lens 13).
5. Archetype: Researcher-founder (mission/science-led), not a professional operator — fitting for a frontier-science platform at this stage, but the company will need commercial/BD muscle as the Lilly relationship scales (it has begun hiring across ML/eng/protein-design).

Alexander Meeske — Co-founder (scientific). CRISPR biologist; PhD Harvard Microbiology, postdoc in Luciano Marraffini's lab at Rockefeller (CRISPR-Cas13 anti-phage immunity), ran a UW Microbiology lab. Provides the wet-lab CRISPR credibility that complements Madani's ML — the editor designs are grounded in real CRISPR biology, not just sequence statistics. (Some sources list him as co-founder/advisor, suggesting his day-to-day role may be advisory while he retains his academic lab — a typical scientific-founder structure.)

Board / investor influence: Altimeter, Bezos Expeditions, Spark, Insight, Air Street now shape governance — a credible, IPO-capable board if the company heads that way.

Lens 10 · Forensic Red Flags

No audited financials exist (private, no CIK) — so classic forensic income-statement/balance-sheet/cash-flow analysis is not applicable; there is no revenue-recognition, receivables, inventory, SBC-vs-non-GAAP, or goodwill line to interrogate. n/a — private, unaudited. The forensic lens re-points (per +private/+clinical) to deal-quality and scientific-integrity risks:

• Milestone-accounting optics (the headline-number risk): the $2.25B Lilly figure is milestone-heavy and should not be read as near-term cash — it pays out only on program selection → preclinical → clinical → regulatory → commercial triggers, none disclosed. A future S-1 would book upfront + R&D funding only; the $2.25B is a contingent number. Flag for any downstream write-up: do not present $2.25B as revenue.
• Scientific-integrity / reproducibility risk: the platform's value rests on in-house and partner claims of designed-protein function. OpenCRISPR-1's Nature publication is a strong external check (peer-reviewed, head-to-head vs SpCas9) — but the broader "scaling laws" and OpenAntibodies efficacy claims are company-sourced (bioRxiv preprint + press) and await independent replication. Treat company efficacy claims as `` until third-party-validated.
• Valuation-vs-fundamentals gap: ~$1B valuation on no disclosed revenue is a narrative/optionality mark, normal for the category but the structural risk — if scaling-law-driven design commoditizes (it's being open-sourced by Profluent itself), the platform premium compresses.

Regulatory findings (required sub-section).

• SEC EDGAR (LR + AAER): regulatory/regulatory-findings.md (fetched 2026-06-30) reports total_sec_findings: 0 — Profluent has no CIK, is private, and is not required to file; no EDGAR enforcement search is possible.
• Non-SEC enforcement (web search): search for "Profluent Bio" (FTC OR DOJ OR FDA OR consent decree OR settlement OR fine OR penalty) returned no material enforcement actions in the reviewed results — coverage was entirely funding/science/partnership news. (Note: as a pre-clinical platform, Profluent has no FDA-regulated marketed product yet; FDA exposure arrives via partner INDs, e.g. Lilly's.)
• 10-K Item 3 (Legal Proceedings): n/a — no 10-K exists (private).
• Disposition: No material regulatory or legal findings — verified via SEC EDGAR EFTS (LR, AAER → 0, no CIK), web search (no hits), and 10-K Item 3 (no filing) as of 2026-06-30. All findings web-only / unaudited per public sources.

---

Phase D — Project & stress-test

Lens 11 → IPO-Readiness & Path-to-Tradeable (+private swap for "Forward Projection")

No EPS projection — the company is private and pre-revenue-disclosure; an EPS line would be fabrication. The +private question is what unlocks a tradeable security, and when. No forecast.ts EPS forecast is logged (per --watchlist rules; and there is no EPS to forecast).

IPO-readiness read (no private-watch.json entry exists for Profluent yet — recommend adding one; see Open items):

• Stage: Series B, ~$1B, validated — a credible pre-IPO platform, but not S-1-ready in the near term. It lacks the thing public markets price: recurring, disclosable revenue and/or owned clinical assets. Its value is platform optionality + the Lilly contingent ladder.
• Crossover tell (IPO-proximity, positive): Altimeter's Series B co-lead is a genuine pre-IPO signal — Altimeter is a public-markets crossover; its entry usually precedes a 2–4-year IPO arc ``.
• Milestones that unlock an S-1: (1) a named Lilly program + IND-enabling progress (converts $2.25B optionality into a believable revenue ramp); (2) a second whale partnership (proves the platform isn't Lilly-dependent); (3) disclosable recurring revenue from tools/ag (Revvity/Corteva/IDT); (4) optionally, first-in-human from any partner program (years away).
• Estimated window: not before ~2027–2028 on the optimistic path, and only if a Lilly milestone lands ``. The nearer-term liquidity event is more likely a larger private round or a strategic acquisition (a pharma or a big-tech-bio buying the platform — note EvolutionaryScale's CZ-Biohub absorption as the category precedent) than an IPO.

Base / Bull / Bear path-to-value (qualitative, ``):

• Base: stays private 2–3 more years; Lilly program advances to a named target; one more mid-size partnership; raises a larger round at a step-up; platform proven, not yet a public company.
• Bull: Lilly hits IND-enabling milestones (first real $2.25B-ladder cash), a second pharma whale signs, OpenAntibodies adoption converts to paid programs → IPO ~2027–2028 at a multiple of the current ~$1B.
• Bear: scaling-law-driven design commoditizes (Profluent's own open-source accelerates this), Lilly's recombinases stall on specificity/safety with no named program, better-funded rivals (Isomorphic/Xaira) out-scale the model → down-round or acqui-hire exit below the ~$1B mark.

Lens 12 · Bull vs Bear

Bull case. Profluent is building the foundation-model layer of biology and has the three things that matter: (1) proof it works — the only company to put an AI-designed functional CRISPR in Nature and validate scaling laws at NeurIPS; (2) blue-chip validation — Lilly staked up to $2.25B, the loudest possible endorsement that pharma will pay for AI-designed enzymes; (3) capital efficiency — it reached this on $150M and ~45 people, so every incremental dollar (Bezos/Altimeter) buys more model and more data. The scaling-law thesis is the growth lever: if bigger models reliably make better proteins, Profluent's data flywheel (115B-protein Atlas + partner-feedback loop) compounds, and the open-source funnel keeps filling the top while partnerships monetize the bottom. The upside surprise is a second and third pharma whale turning a one-customer platform into the default protein-design vendor for the industry — a "picks-and-shovels for the genetic-medicine era" outcome.

Bear case (2–3 ways it permanently impairs).

1. The moat is open-sourced away — by its own hand. Profluent gives away OpenCRISPR-1 and (soon) OpenAntibodies, explicitly designed to be non-infringing. If the designs are the value and they're free, the only durable asset is the data flywheel — and Isomorphic (Alphabet money), Xaira ($1B+), and the academic field can build their own atlases. Commoditization is the base-rate outcome for an openly-published method.
2. Single-partner concentration before durable revenue. Lilly is now the economic spine, and the $2.25B is contingent optionality, not cash. If Lilly's recombinases stall on specificity / off-target / delivery / immunogenicity (all unresolved per LucidQuest) and no program is named, the headline number evaporates and the platform narrative narrows to "bespoke R&D shop".
3. Out-gunned on the capital that the scaling-law thesis itself says is the moat. Profluent's own argument — scale wins — is an argument for its better-funded rivals. $150M vs Xaira's $1B+ and Alphabet-backed Isomorphic is a structural disadvantage if compute is destiny.

Pre-mortem (18 months out, thesis broke — what happened?): A rival (Isomorphic or an open academic model) matched OpenAntibodies/OpenCRISPR-quality designs for free, Lilly quietly de-prioritized the recombinase programs without naming a target (so the $2.25B never started paying), no second whale signed, and the ~$1B mark proved to be peak-narrative private capital — the next event was a flat/down round or a strategic acqui-hire.

Are multiples too high? Unmeasurable (n/a, private). But ~$1B on zero disclosed revenue is a pure-optionality mark — fine while the catalysts keep landing, fragile the moment they pause.

Contrarian view (what the market refuses to see): The crowd reads the Lilly $2.25B as the bull-confirming headline; the contrarian read is that trading platform exclusivity to a single pharma for validation + capital is exactly what a platform does when it can't monetize broadly on its own — the deal is as much a constraint (Lilly locks up the best recombinase programs) as a trophy. Conversely, the under-appreciated bull is the open-source-as-distribution flywheel: if "OpenCRISPR/OpenAntibodies" become the default free tools researchers reach for, Profluent owns the standard, and standards monetize eventually (the GitHub/Hugging-Face-of-proteins outcome) — a moat the spreadsheet-driven bears can't see because it doesn't show up as revenue yet.

Lens 13 · Devil's Advocate (short-seller)

Dismantling the bull case:

• What structurally breaks the money-making? The product is deliberately given away. A short-seller's cleanest line: "name one thing they sell that a competitor can't replicate from their own published method and atlas." The answer is bespoke partner work + data — i.e., a services/consulting business wearing a platform's valuation.
• Where is revenue concentrated? In one partner (Lilly) and a contingent ladder. Shift that concentration — Lilly walks, or simply doesn't advance — and the disclosed economics collapse to undisclosed tools/ag dribbles.
• Why is the moat weaker than bulls think? Because the founder's own thesis (scaling laws) says capital + compute win, and Profluent is the least-capitalized serious entrant ($150M vs $1B+ rivals). Open-sourcing the outputs forfeits the IP moat voluntarily.
• Most dangerous competitor bulls underestimate? Isomorphic Labs — Alphabet-scale capital + DeepMind's structure-prediction lineage (AlphaFold) + the ability to operate at a loss indefinitely. If Isomorphic decides protein design is strategic, it can out-spend Profluent on the very axis (scale) Profluent says matters.
• Worst capital-allocation / incentive concern? Not governance — it's the strategic gamble of monetizing via partner royalties on programs that are years from the clinic, while giving the platform away. The incentive misalignment is subtle: open-source maximizes adoption/reputation (good for the founder's standing and the next raise) but may not maximize enterprise value.
• What must hold for ~$1B? That (a) scaling laws keep delivering better proteins, (b) Lilly advances and names a program, (c) a second whale appears, and (d) no rival commoditizes design first. Break any one and the optionality mark deflates.
• If platform "growth" disappoints 20–30% (fewer/slower partnerships, no Lilly milestone): a private down-round or acqui-hire below ~$1B — the EvolutionaryScale-into-CZ-Biohub template, where a celebrated model team gets absorbed rather than going public.
• Single scenario that permanently impairs: a credible, free, better open model (from Isomorphic, Meta-lineage EvolutionaryScale-now-CZBiohub, or academia) becomes the field standard — Profluent's open releases become also-rans, and a platform with no proprietary product and no owned drug has nothing left to sell. Plausibility: moderate — this is a fast-moving open field, and Profluent has chosen to compete in the open.

Lens 14 · Management Questions (15, ordered by information value)

1. What, exactly, is the durable moat once OpenCRISPR-1 and OpenAntibodies are free and non-infringing — what can a competitor with your published method and their own protein atlas not replicate?
2. On the Lilly deal: what is the upfront + committed R&D funding (the non-contingent cash), and what triggers the first milestone — has a target class or indication been selected?
3. What share of the up-to-$2.25B is upfront/near-term vs gated on clinical/regulatory/commercial events that are years away?
4. What did you give up to Lilly — does the agreement restrict your freedom to design recombinases (or related editors) for other partners or for in-house use?
5. Do you have, or will you build, owned clinical assets — or is the model permanently "platform-only, partner-owned economics"? Why is that the right value-capture choice?
6. What is your disclosable recurring revenue today (tools/ag via Revvity, Corteva, IDT), and what is its growth rate?
7. If scaling laws are the thesis and capital/compute are the moat, how do you win against Isomorphic (Alphabet) and Xaira ($1B+) on $150M — what's the compute-efficiency edge?
8. What proprietary experimental-validation data do you hold that a competitor can't buy or generate, and how fast does the partner-feedback flywheel actually compound?
9. For the recombinase programs: what is your current data on off-target recombination, immunogenicity, and AAV-deliverability — the three things that kill genetic medicines?
10. What is your cash runway post-Series B, and does the Lilly R&D funding extend it materially — when do you next need to raise?
11. OpenAntibodies: will you monetize the 20-target release (upfront license) or give it away — and what's the conversion path from a free recipe to a paid program?
12. Independent replication: which of your efficacy claims (beyond the Nature OpenCRISPR-1 paper) have been validated by a third party not paid by Profluent?
13. What is the realistic path-to-tradeable — IPO, larger private round, or strategic sale — and what milestones gate it? (Given Altimeter's entry, is an IPO the intent?)
14. What's Alexander Meeske's current role — full-time scientific leadership or advisory — and how is wet-lab CRISPR expertise institutionalized beyond the founders?
15. As you scale commercial relationships, what BD/commercial leadership are you adding so the company isn't dependent on the founder's reputation to close the next pharma deal?

---