Twist Bioscience

Phase A — Understand the business

Lens 1 · Company Overview

Twist Bioscience is a synthetic-biology tools manufacturer whose core edge is a proprietary method of "writing" DNA on a silicon chip — miniaturizing the classic phosphoramidite synthesis reaction onto a semiconductor substrate to run ~10,000 reactions in the footprint of one legacy well. From that single platform it sells four families of product, now grouped (as of fiscal 2026) into two reportable revenue lines:

• DNA synthesis & protein solutions — synthetic genes, oligo pools, DNA libraries, and biopharma antibody-discovery/optimization services. $53.3M in Q2 FY26 (48% of revenue), +28% YoY.
• NGS applications (formerly "NGS tools") — target-enrichment panels and sample-prep kits that sit upstream of an Illumina/PacBio sequencer. $57.4M in Q2 FY26 (52% of revenue), +12% YoY.

How it makes money: transactional, catalog-and-custom product sales, primarily Ex-Works (revenue booked when the customer's freight forwarder collects). This is a razor-and-consumable volume business, not a recurring-contract SaaS — there is no take-or-pay, no large backlog (remaining performance obligations were only $16.6M at Mar-2026 ). Revenue scales with genes shipped: ~938,000 genes in FY2025 (+22%), and +32% YoY genes shipped in both Q2 and H1 FY26. Customer count ~2,583 in Q2 FY26 vs 2,431 a year prior — growth is broad-based, not concentrated.

The costume vs. the company: the market currently frames Twist as an "AI-bio infrastructure" play — the picks-and-shovels supplier of the synthetic DNA that trains/validates AI protein-design models. Management leans in: >$25M of "AI orders" in FY25, a "Complex Genes" program, and a claimed >$12B TAM by 2030. That framing is directionally real (AI protein design does consume synthetic genes) but is doing enormous work in the valuation (Lens 7/12). The actual business is a mid-cap life-science-tools company growing high-teens with 50%+ gross margins and no profits yet.

Lens 2 · Supply Chain

Twist is unusually vertically integrated for a tools company — it owns the hard part (the chip and the synthesis chemistry) — so its named-stakeholder map is short on the input side and long on the customer side.

Upstream inputs → Twist:

• Silicon wafers / semiconductor substrate — the chip is fabbed to Twist's design; the specific foundry is not named in the filings, but the "silicon chip" is the single-source technological chokepoint. n/a — specific wafer supplier not disclosed.
• Phosphoramidite reagents, enzymes, nucleotides, lab consumables — commodity reagent inputs; material-cost line rose $6.3M in Q2 FY26 on volume. Multiple suppliers, not disclosed by name.
• Manufacturing footprint: South San Francisco (HQ + R&D) and the Wilsonville, Oregon "Factory of the Future" (~110,000 sq ft) — the very facility Scorpion Capital alleged was underutilized in 2022 (Lens 10). Twist signed a Nov-2025 lease amendment adding ~33,000 sq ft in South SF through 2036, so it is still expanding capacity.

Twist → end customer (named):

• Buyers by end-market: Therapeutics 37% of Q2 rev ($40.8M, +55% YoY — the fastest-growing cohort), Diagnostics 36%, Academic research & government 12%, Industry/applied 5%, "Global supply partners" 10%. The therapeutics acceleration is the AI-bio story showing up in the mix.
• Channel partners / co-opetition: IDT (Danaher) and Illumina both compete with Twist's NGS-prep products and sit adjacent in the workflow — Twist's kits feed samples into Illumina/PacBio sequencers downstream. Related-party revenue was $12.2M in FY25.
• Spun-out adjacency: Atlas Data Storage — Twist contributed its DNA-data-storage IP/equipment in May 2025 for a ~24% equity stake + $2.5M cash + $2M note + up to $75M milestones + royalties; Atlas launched with $155M seed from ARCH, Deerfield, Bezos Expeditions, In-Q-Tel, imec et al.. Twist carries the stake at $54.3M on the balance sheet.

Chokepoints: (1) the silicon-chip synthesis process itself — single-source, in-house, the moat and the concentration; (2) geographic manufacturing concentration in two US sites; (3) reliance on the health of the downstream sequencing market (if Illumina consumables slow on NIH cuts, Twist's NGS line feels it — Lens 12).

Lens 3 · Competitive Advantages (moats)

The moat is a cost-curve, and it is real but narrowing at the edges. Twist's silicon-chip synthesis lets it undercut legacy column-based synthesis on price/turnaround/scale — gross margin went 42.6% → 50.7% → 51.6% (Q2 FY26) while holding fixed manufacturing costs roughly flat and growing volume, which is the signature of genuine operating leverage on a differentiated process, not just mix. That is the core bull fact of the whole dossier.

Durable-moat inventory:

• Process/scale (strong): the chip is hard to replicate; each doubling of volume drives unit cost down while competitors on legacy chemistry can't follow. This is the classic learning-curve / process moat.
• IP estate (moderate): an owned patent portfolio around chip-based synthesis; but the space is litigious and crowded (Agilent history, Lens 10), and next-gen enzymatic synthesis (Ansa, DNA Script, Elegen, Molecular Assemblies) is an orthogonal attack vector that could leapfrog silicon on certain gene lengths.
• Switching costs (weak-moderate): for catalog genes/oligos, switching is a purchase-order decision — low friction. Switching cost rises where Twist is embedded in a diagnostic's validated NGS-panel workflow (regulatory re-validation is painful), which is why the diagnostics/therapeutics mix matters.
• Brand / network effects (weak): e-commerce platform + "grit/impact/service/trust" culture give some pull, but this is a spec-and-price market. No network effect.

Bargaining power: over suppliers — moderate, inputs are commodity. Over customers — modest and improving with the therapeutics cohort (a drug program that designed around Twist genes is sticky), but for the academic/industrial long tail, Twist is a price-taker. Verdict: a real process-cost moat with a shallow switching-cost moat around it — enough to defend high-teens growth and margin expansion, not enough to justify a software-like multiple.

Lens 4 · Segments

One reportable segment (synthetic DNA manufacturing), disaggregated three ways — all ``.

By product (Q2 FY26 vs prior, new taxonomy):

By geography (Q2 FY26): Americas $64.3M (58%), EMEA $37.3M (34%, the fastest-growing region — +22% YoY), APAC $9.1M (8%). EMEA has climbed from 30% (FY24) to 34% — international expansion is working; APAC/China remains small (and is where Scorpion alleged offshore concerns).

By end-market (Q2 FY26): Therapeutics $40.8M (37%, +55%), Diagnostics $40.0M (36%, +14%), Academic & govt $12.8M (12%, +3%), Industry/applied $5.8M (5%, −18%), Global supply partners $11.4M (10%). The story: therapeutics is the engine, academic is dead money, industrial is shrinking. Critically, academic/government is only ~12% of revenue — which materially blunts the NIH-cut bear case (Lens 12) versus pure academic-tools peers.

FY2025 full-year for reference: revenue $376.6M (+20%), Americas 60% / EMEA 33% / APAC 7%; NGS tools $208.1M (55%), synthetic genes $113.6M (30%).

---

Phase B — Measure performance

Lens 5 · Earnings Result (fiscal Q2 2026, ended 2026-03-31)

The print: revenue $110.7M, +19.3% YoY — the 13th consecutive quarter of sequential growth and a beat of guidance ($107–108M) by ~$3M. But EPS was $(0.71) vs. consensus ~$(0.48) — a ~48% miss on the bottom line.

• Revenue drivers: DNA synthesis +28%, NGS +12%; therapeutics +55%.
• Margins: gross margin 51.6% (up 2.0pts YoY); loss from operations $(45.9)M, which actually widened 10.4% YoY. Two culprits: SG&A +19% to $76.1M (commercial headcount build) and a one-off $7.2M litigation settlement, net of recoveries (Lens 10). R&D fell 18% to $19.7M (post-Atlas-spinout).
• Net loss: $(44.0)M; H1 FY26 net loss $(74.5)M vs $(70.9)M.
• Balance sheet: cash & equivalents $122.7M + $49.0M short-term investments = $171.7M, down from $232.4M at FY25-end — i.e. ~$60M consumed in H1. Zero debt. H1 operating cash burn $42.4M (up from $34.4M). Accounts receivable $57.0M at FY25-end (up from $34.9M — AR grew faster than revenue in FY25, a watch item, Lens 10).
• Guidance: management raised FY26 revenue to $442–447M (17–19% growth), Q3 to $114–115M, and reiterated adjusted-EBITDA breakeven in Q4 FY26 with full-year GM >52%.
• Market reaction: stock rose despite the EPS miss — the market is trading the revenue-beat-plus-raise and the breakeven glide-path, not the GAAP loss. That tells you what's priced: growth + the profitability inflection, not near-term earnings.

Unusual vs. own history: the widening operating loss despite record revenue and margin — a red flag partly explained by the litigation one-off, but SG&A running +19% while revenue runs +19% means no operating leverage below the gross line this quarter. Breakeven credibility rests on the promised H2 SG&A moderation.

Lens 6 · Earnings Calls (sentiment trend)

No transcripts on the research-layer shelf (transcripts/ empty) — sentiment reconstructed from web summaries of the last ~3 calls; label ``.

• Q1 FY26 (Feb-2026): "path to profitability accelerates," revenue beat + raise. Tone: confident, profitability-forward.
• Q2 FY26 (May-2026): record revenue, guidance raise, breakeven reiterated for Q4 FY26; AI-discovery and Complex Genes emphasized; the EPS miss acknowledged but reframed around the breakeven glide-path.
• Recurring phrases management now leans on: "adjusted EBITDA breakeven," "AI-enabled drug discovery," "Complex Genes," "$1B revenue by fiscal 2031," "consecutive quarters of sequential growth."
• What they've stopped saying: the DNA-data-storage moonshot (spun into Atlas May-2025 and largely dropped from the narrative), and the "Factory of the Future" utilization defensiveness that dominated the 2022–2023 Scorpion aftermath.

Trend: sentiment has shifted decisively from "defend the story / prove the tech is real" (2022–23) to "we're compounding to profitability" (2025–26). The tone is earned by the margin curve — but it has also become promotional around the AI TAM, which is exactly what a skeptic would flag (Lens 13).

Lens 7 · Comps

The company + genomics/synbio peers. Multiples are `` with source/date or n/a; never fabricated.

Read: at ~14.3x EV/Sales on a loss-making, high-teens-growth tools company, TWST is priced at the very top of the life-science-tools complex — a band usually reserved for profitable software or 30%+ growers. Illumina (profitable, dominant) does not command anything like this multiple. The multiple is an AI-bio premium, not a tools multiple. 5-yr average ROE is not meaningful — Twist has never earned a profit (accumulated deficit $1.394B at Mar-2026 ). Dividend yield: 0%.

Consensus vs. price — the load-bearing conflict: sell-side 12-month targets cluster $54.80 avg (range $50–58), and even the more bullish counts land ~$64–69. The stock is ~$102. The market is trading ~50–85% above the analysts' own price targets — a rare, explicit divergence. One DCF model (Simply Wall St) pegs intrinsic value near $11. Surface this, don't reconcile it: the price embeds a future the sell-side has not underwritten.

Lens 8 · Stock-Price Catalysts (moves >5%, last ~5 yrs) — ``

• Nov 2022 — Scorpion Capital short report: shares −20% on fraud/Theranos allegations. The defining bear event; spawned the Peters class action (Lens 10).
• 2022–2024 — rate-driven de-rating: unprofitable small-cap biotech/tools compressed hard; TWST bottomed near $23 (52-wk low $23.30).
• May 2025 — Atlas spinout + Q2 beat: DNA-storage moonshot spun out, R&D de-risked, +23% quarterly rev.
• Jan 2026 — Q1 print + target hikes: stock jumped on beat + raised targets.
• 2026 (YTD) — the AI-bio re-rating: ~+140% YTD / +145% over six months on AI-drug-discovery demand, Complex Genes, and the breakeven glidepath; TD Cowen and others raised targets citing "AI demand". Stock ran to a 52-wk high of $104.23.
• Jun 2026 — CEO insider sale: Leproust sold 16,000 shares for ~$1.1M (Lens 9).

Pattern: TWST reacts to (1) quarterly revenue beats + guidance raises (the compounding proof), (2) narrative regime shifts (short report down; AI-bio up), and (3) macro risk-appetite for unprofitable growth. It is a story-and-momentum stock far more than an earnings stock — which cuts both ways.

---

Phase C — Judge people & books

Lens 9 · Management

• Emily Leproust (Co-founder & CEO) — PhD chemist, co-founded Twist in 2013, took it public 2018. Employed "at will". Founder-CEO archetype — the technical visionary who built the silicon-DNA platform from zero to $377M revenue. Track record: real technology commercialized, 13 straight quarters of sequential growth, gross margin doubled off the lows. That is a genuine builder.
• Adam Laponis (CFO) — principal financial officer. Oversaw the margin-expansion and cost-discipline story (R&D down, Atlas spun out, XOMA royalty monetization).
• Skin in the game / insider activity: founder ownership gives alignment, but the June-2026 CEO sale of 16,000 shares (~$1.1M) into a +140% rally is a mild caution flag — routine 10b5-1 diversification is likely, but selling into euphoria is worth noting when the stock trades at 2x the sell-side. Note: insider-transactions.csv not on shelf — sale sourced ``.
• Capital allocation: disciplined and improving. Spun out the cash-burning DNA-storage moonshot into Atlas rather than funding it on-balance-sheet (kept a 24% call option on the upside for near-zero cash); monetized future biopharma royalties to XOMA for $15M upfront; cut R&D 18%; no debt, no dilution-by-desperation (financing in FY25 was option exercises + ESPP + the XOMA deal, not an equity raise). This is a management team that found religion on the path to profitability after the 2022 humbling. ROE/ROIC still negative (never profitable), so capital-allocation quality is judged on the trajectory, not the level.
• Red flags: the 2022 securities class action named the CEO and CFO (now settling — Lens 10); the AI-TAM promotion in 2026 is getting frothy; insider selling into the rally. None are disqualifying; all are worth tracking.

Verdict: a credible, technically-deep founder team that has visibly matured on capital discipline — the single biggest positive in the people column is the willingness to kill/spin the moonshot and drive to breakeven.

Lens 10 · Forensic Red Flags

Grounded in financials.csv (empty — used filing text) + filings; each figure labeled.

• Accumulated deficit $1.394B against $472.9M equity — a decade-plus of losses; every share of book value has been funded by dilution (APIC $1.79B). Not fraud, but the base rate for "never earns its cost of capital" is non-trivial.
• Receivables outrunning revenue (watch): AR grew to $57.0M at FY25-end from $34.9M (+63%) while revenue grew +20%; the FY25 operating-cash bridge cites a $22.4M AR increase as a use of cash. Contract assets also jumped to $8.4M from $3.9M in H1 FY26. Worth watching for revenue-quality/collection risk, though partly explained by strong Q4/therapeutics growth and longer-cycle biopharma deals.
• Cash flow vs. earnings: FY25 net loss $(77.7)M was flattered by a $48.8M non-cash gain on the Atlas sale — strip it out and the underlying operating loss is ~$136M. Non-GAAP/adjusted-EBITDA framing leans on $64.5M of stock-based comp (FY25) added back — SBC is ~17% of revenue, a large flatter of the "breakeven" narrative. The Q4-FY26 "adjusted EBITDA breakeven" excludes ~$64M/yr of real SBC dilution and D&A — GAAP profitability is years further out. This is the most important accounting caveat in the dossier: EBITDA-breakeven ≠ making money.
• Segment reporting: clean — one reportable segment, disaggregated three ways; EY issued an unqualified opinion and flagged revenue recognition as the Critical Audit Matter (high transaction volume across multiple systems). No going-concern qualifier; management asserts >12 months liquidity.
• Related parties: $12.2M FY25 related-party revenue, $53.9M related-party equity (the Atlas stake), $1.1M sublease income from a related party. Disclosed, not alarming, but the Atlas relationship (Twist as 24% owner and contract manufacturer/customer to Atlas) is a related-party web to monitor.
• Leases: $75.6M operating-lease obligation, expanded via the Nov-2025 South SF amendment through 2036 — long-dated fixed cost.

Regulatory findings (required sub-section):

• SEC Litigation Releases / AAERs: none. regulatory/regulatory-findings.md (fetched 2026-07-01 via SEC EDGAR EFTS) returns 0 LR and 0 AAER naming Twist Bioscience since 2021.
• Item 3 / securities litigation (the material item): Peters v. Twist Bioscience (N.D. Cal., Case No. 22-cv-08168), a putative securities class action filed Dec 12, 2022 against the company, CEO, and CFO alleging federal-securities-law violations — filed in the wake of the Scorpion short report. On Mar 31, 2026 the parties reached a settlement in principle of ~$17.1M, presented to the court for preliminary approval Apr 30, 2026; liability insurers are expected to fund the majority (~$14.9M recovery deemed probable), leaving Twist's net cost ~$7.2M (the litigation-settlement line in Q2 FY26). Related derivative suits (Shumacher, and a Nov-2025 derivative action) are stayed/pending. This resolves the single largest legal overhang from the 2022 short attack — a modest, mostly-insured settlement with no admission, no restatement.
• Non-SEC enforcement: web search surfaced no material FTC/DOJ/FDA/consent-decree actions against Twist Bioscience as of 2026-07.
• Net: No SEC enforcement, no restatement, no going-concern. The one real legal event is the Scorpion-driven securities class action, now settling cheaply and mostly on insurers' dime. The forensic caveats that matter are economic, not fraud: SBC-flattered "breakeven," receivables growth, and a $1.4B lifetime loss — not accounting malfeasance. (Verified via SEC EDGAR EFTS (LR, AAER), web search, and 10-Q class-action note as of 2026-07-01.)

---

Phase D — Project & stress-test

Lens 11 · Forward Projection (EPS/EBITDA, next 3 fiscal years) — ``, arithmetic shown

Twist is pre-profit, so the honest projection is a revenue → adjusted-EBITDA → GAAP-EPS glide-path, not a clean EPS series. Base built bottom-up from guidance.

Revenue (FY ends Sept):

• FY2026 (base): company guide $442–447M; take $445M = +18% on FY25 $376.6M.
• FY2027 (base): management frames ~16%+ CAGR to ~$1B by FY2031; apply +17% → ~$521M.
• FY2028 (base): +16% → ~$604M.

Profitability:

• Adjusted EBITDA: breakeven exit-rate Q4 FY26 (guide); modestly positive FY27, mid-single-digit % adj-EBITDA margin FY28 as SG&A moderates and gross margin holds ~52%+.

• GAAP EPS: stays negative across all three years. Back-of-envelope FY26 net loss ~$(1.30)–(1.45)/sh; FY27 ~$(0.70)–(1.00); FY28 approaching but not reaching GAAP breakeven — the ~$64M/yr SBC + D&A wedge keeps GAAP red well past adjusted-EBITDA breakeven.

• Bull path: therapeutics/AI-synthesis sustains +25%+, revenue to ~$480M FY26 / ~$600M FY27; adj-EBITDA turns solidly positive FY27; GAAP loss narrows fast.

• Bear path: NGS decelerates further on NIH/pharma-budget pressure, revenue lands low end ~$442M and grows only 12% thereafter ($495M FY27); SG&A moderation slips; breakeven pushed into FY27; another cash-burn year with ~$170M cash → a potential equity raise inside 24–30 months if burn doesn't inflect (cash $122.7M, H1 burn $42.4M → ~$85M/yr).

Brier forecast: per --watchlist rules, not logging a forecast.ts entry in the unattended loop. The scoreable base call to log later: "TWST reports positive adjusted EBITDA in Q4 FY2026 (quarter ending 2026-09-30)" — base probability ~0.60 (guided, but SG&A-dependent and Q2 op-loss widened).

Lens 12 · Bull vs Bear

Bull case. Twist owns a genuine, widening cost-advantage in DNA synthesis — the one moat that compounds (margin 43%→52% while volume doubled). It sits directly in the highest-secular-growth lane in life-science tools: AI-driven protein/therapeutic design consumes synthetic genes, and Twist's therapeutics cohort is already +55% YoY. Management has de-risked the story (spun the moonshot, cut R&D, no debt, settled the 2022 litigation cheaply) and is guiding to its first-ever profitability inflection (adj-EBITDA breakeven Q4 FY26) with a credible line of sight to ~$1B revenue by FY2031. Optionality is free: a 24% stake in Atlas (a $155M-backed DNA-storage venture with In-Q-Tel/Bezos behind it) that the market ascribes ~nothing to. If the AI-bio TAM is even half-real, this is the picks-and-shovels winner.

Bear case (permanent-impairment risks).

1. Valuation is the risk. At ~14x sales, ~$102, and ~2x the sell-side, TWST prices in flawless execution and the AI-TAM being real. A single missed quarter or a slipped breakeven re-rates it violently (see the −20% Scorpion reaction for how this stock trades on narrative breaks). The stock has already +140% YTD — most of the good news is in.
2. It has never made money and GAAP profit is years out. $1.4B accumulated deficit; "breakeven" is an SBC-excluding adjusted metric masking ~$64M/yr of real dilution. If the market ever re-prices this as a tools company (Illumina-like multiple) rather than an AI company, downside is 60–80% (the ~$11 DCF, while extreme, isn't crazy on a pure-fundamentals basis).
3. Demand-side fragility. NGS (52% of rev) leans on sequencing/academic/diagnostic budgets exposed to the proposed ~40% NIH cut and pharma R&D belt-tightening. Academic is only ~12% (mitigant), but a broad tools-spending slowdown would hit the NGS line and puncture the +19% growth that justifies everything.
4. Competitive encirclement. Enzymatic synthesis (Ansa, DNA Script, Elegen) and deep-pocketed IDT/Danaher and Thermo could compress Twist's price advantage over time.

Pre-mortem (18 months out, thesis broke): it's Dec-2027. NIH cuts and pharma budget cuts slowed NGS to high-single-digits; the Q4-FY26 "breakeven" was hit on adjusted metrics but GAAP losses persisted and cash fell toward $80M, forcing a dilutive raise; the AI-bio narrative cooled as protein-design labs in-sourced synthesis or moved to enzymatic; and the stock re-rated from 14x to 5x sales — a ~65% drawdown to the low-$30s. Nothing fraudulent happened; the multiple simply reverted to what a high-teens, unprofitable tools business is worth.

Contrarian view (what the market is refusing to see): on the upside — that the Atlas stake + biopharma royalty options are worth real money the price ignores. On the downside (the more important one here) — that "AI-bio infrastructure" is a re-labeling of a decent-but-ordinary tools company, and the 14x multiple is a story premium that history says mean-reverts the moment growth or the breakeven date wobbles.

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

Dismantling the bull case:

• The multiple is the whole thesis, and it's indefensible on fundamentals. 14x sales for a business that (a) has never earned a dime in 12+ years, (b) guides to adjusted breakeven that excludes ~17%-of-revenue SBC, and (c) grows high-teens, not 30%+. The bull needs the AI narrative to hold, not the numbers — and narratives on this exact stock have collapsed 20% overnight before (Scorpion, 2022).
• "AI-bio" is doing unfalsifiable work. $25M of "AI orders" on a $445M base is ~5% of revenue. A $12B-by-2030 TAM is a management slide, not a booking. Strip the AI framing and you have a tools company that a rational buyer values at Illumina-adjacent multiples — a fraction of today's price.
• Revenue quality question. Receivables +63% vs revenue +20% in FY25, contract assets doubling — is growth being pulled forward or shipped to slower-paying biopharma counterparties? The 2022 short thesis (COGS/accounting) was overblown, but AR is the line to watch.
• Cash clock is ticking. $122.7M cash, ~$85M annualized burn. If the breakeven date slips even two quarters, they raise equity into a stock that's up 140% — great for the company, dilutive for the multiple.
• Most dangerous competitor bulls underrate: Danaher's IDT (infinite balance sheet, integrated with Illumina's DRAGEN workflow) and enzymatic-synthesis upstarts that could make silicon-chip synthesis the legacy method Twist claims to have replaced.
• What must hold for $102: high-teens growth for years, gross margin ratcheting past 52%, SG&A actually moderating in H2, breakeven hit on time, AND the market continuing to award an AI multiple. Break any one and it re-rates.
• If growth disappoints 20–30% (say +12% instead of +18%): the raise-guidance flywheel reverses, the breakeven date slips, and a 14x→6x de-rate implies 60%+ downside.
• Single permanent-impairment scenario: a durable NIH/pharma tools-spending winter coincident with enzymatic synthesis reaching commercial parity — Twist's growth stalls, its cost-moat erodes, and it becomes a sub-scale, cash-consuming tools also-ran. Plausibility: low-to-moderate, but non-trivial over a 3–5 year horizon.

Lens 14 · Management Questions (ordered by information value)

1. Your FY26 "adjusted EBITDA breakeven" excludes ~$64M/yr of stock-based comp. What is the credible year for positive GAAP operating income and free cash flow, and what revenue level does that require?
2. Cash is $122.7M and H1 burn was $42.4M. Under what scenario do you raise equity, and what's the minimum cash balance you'll operate to before doing so?
3. NGS applications (52% of revenue) grew only 12% vs. DNA synthesis +28%. Is NGS structurally decelerating, and how exposed is it to NIH funding cuts and pharma R&D budgets in FY26–27?
4. Accounts receivable grew +63% while revenue grew +20% in FY25. What's driving the divergence — mix shift to slower-paying biopharma, or extended terms to win share?
5. Quantify the actual AI-driven demand: what % of revenue today is genuinely AI-protein-design-driven, and what's the real (not TAM-slide) FY27–28 contribution you're underwriting?
6. SG&A rose 19% in Q2 while revenue rose 19%. What specifically moderates in H2 to hit breakeven, and is that cost-out durable or one-time?
7. On the Atlas stake (24%): what's your realistic monetization path and timeline, and are you a customer/manufacturer to Atlas in a way that creates related-party revenue?
8. Where are you on the cost-per-base curve today vs. 3 years ago, and how much further can silicon-chip synthesis drive unit costs before hitting physical limits?
9. How do you defend against enzymatic synthesis (Ansa, DNA Script, Elegen) — is it a threat, a complement, or something you'll acquire/build?
10. IDT (Danaher) is integrating with Illumina's DRAGEN pipeline. How do you compete on NGS-prep against a rival with a sequencing partner and Danaher's balance sheet?
11. Therapeutics is +55% and now 37% of revenue. How concentrated is that in your top customers, and what's the revenue-durability if a few AI-biotech programs fail or in-source synthesis?
12. Manufacturing is concentrated in two US sites. What's the geographic/capacity resilience plan, and does the Wilsonville facility now run at the utilization the 2022 critics questioned?
13. With the Peters securities class action settling (~$17.1M, mostly insured), are all material legal overhangs from the 2022 period now resolved?
14. What is the incremental gross margin on the next dollar of DNA-synthesis revenue vs. NGS, and where does blended gross margin plateau?
15. Insider selling occurred into the 2026 rally. How should investors read management's own view of the risk/reward at current levels?

---