Thanks, John. The Traceability opportunity is growing very, very quickly, certainly faster than we anticipated. Our decision to clear the decks and focus on what a world with Traceability could mean for us was clearly the right decision. We worked extremely hard over the past year to establish our position in the market, to secure endorsements in collaboration with industry leaders, and capture a foothold with major retailers and distributors. That's working to say the least. We continue to be the only company actually doing traceability, while others are still only talking about it. Meanwhile, the overall opportunity is expanding. Kroger, the largest grocery chain in the US, recently announced to its supply chain that all suppliers, not just those impacted by FSMA Rule 204, but all food suppliers must comply with Kroger's traceability framework – boom. This announcement dramatically changes everything because this will set the food safety bar for other retailers. This is perhaps the most significant change in the history of the retail food industry. And we are seriously thunder stage [ph] for it. We're not doing traceability for Kroger per se, but we're helping Kroger suppliers meet Kroger's requirements. As we have expected, the statement by Kroger demonstrates that large retailers simply aren't going to sort incoming deliveries, trying to figure out which pallet on which truck is impacted by Rule 204 and which ones are not. Labor is one of the biggest costs for these retailers. So adding more people to figure out which box has to be treated in one way and which box has to be treated another way makes no operational nor frankly financial sense. The idea is a nonstarter. Instead, Kroger, and soon others who are convinced, are mandating that their suppliers are going to trace everything, streamlining the process down to one way to handle product. As we have believed for some time, that will become the standard for the industry. Moreover, Kroger is mandating this has to be done by June 30, 2025, a full six months ahead of the FDA deadline. In short, more and sooner. So what we're doing to traceability is no longer being driven by regulation alone, but more importantly, by the market, a far more powerful force. Retailers care much more about competitive threat than simply regulatory requirements, right out of our playbook. So let's look at where we are. First, we said the industry would ultimately move more quickly than the FDA. The stampede is on the horizon, as I'm sure you've seen illustrated in our numerous press releases in the past few months. The Kroger date moves the goalposts up rather than back. It's really amazing. Second, we said that the industry likely needs more time as the requirements are technically challenging, complex and require significant adjustments to how suppliers and retailers do logistics. The issue, though, is no longer one of FDA relief, it's now a market driven problem. The scope and pressure of market forces will be far, far greater than the FDA compliance requirements. Think about this. When Kroger is the only retailer able to say we trace everything we sell to you to ensure its safety, ouch. Others will speed up rather than slow down. Third, we said the FDA mandate would serve only as a starting point and ultimately traceability would impact a far larger segment of the industry. Again, Kroger makes that point moot, the bar is now set and trace it all will be the preferred way to do business. That is exactly what we expected would happen. And it's happening now, not later. As a result, our work with Traceability is exploding. It is a monumental task that we have overcome before with our compliance business. And we're ready to scale once again with Traceability. As you may recall, when we begin in the compliance business, we moved in the first year from 200 connected suppliers to year two where we did 2500, and year three where we did nearly 10,000. And today, we have over 100,000 facilities in our compliance network. The cadence for traceability is likely to be quite similar. But the point is, we've been there, done that before in terms of scaling. We now have hundreds of supplier facilities onboarded in our ReposiTrak Traceability Network, or RTN as we call it, and 1,000 more in the queue awaiting implementation. Our current name customers have the potential to bring in additional 3,000 or more supplier facilities into the onboarding queue within the next six months. And beyond that, our pipeline of new wholesalers and retailers is very deep and very wide. The recurring revenue from this is more than we anticipated at this point, but it's still just 3% to 4% of our revenue. The work we have to do on the back end is significant and complex. And in response, we're laser focused on the internal systems that we're going to need. And I'm confident that the team is up to the task. As I've said, we've done this before. At this point, the current traceability queue represents about $3.6 million in additional annual recurring revenue that will be booked sometime in the next year. We expect revenues to accelerate and ultimately double our annual recurring revenue within the next two to three years. The overall opportunity is significantly larger than we expected. But barring something major and unforeseen, the next few years looks to be very promising for ReposiTrak and its shareholders. By the way, this might prove to be the biggest understatement of my career. Keep in mind, end-to-end traceability is not new for us. The foundation for it's been in our wheelhouse for many years. This is why we've gotten such a lead, while others are still talking about traceability with futurists and blockchain buzzwords and absurd startup type technologies, along with their lethargic balance sheets, thirst for capital, and little, if any, operating history in our space. Each day that passes, as additional suppliers sign into our network, the RTN extend its lead, reinforcing and expanding the moats around our business. One way to think about our lead is that no one else has done traceability yet with any suppliers end-to-end, while at the same time, at this moment, we're doing it with hundreds, and soon thousands, of facilities. Dominant doesn't do justice, actually, to where we are. We've been deep in the food supply chain for a long time. There's very little in terms of problems and issues that we haven't already dealt with. We are, unlike anyone else, that the Boston Consulting Group would say, we are way, way down the experience curve. Others are simply, at this point, trying to get to the starting blocks. It is, though, important to remember that most suppliers will end up with more than one system that they use. And as a result, it's not a pure market share gain. So, in some sense, a competitive threat isn't a real important consideration for us. It's important for us to get essentially every supplier that exists, potentially seriously more than 100,000 facilities, and that others may get many suppliers as well. Our business model was built under the assumption that suppliers will likely end up with more than one system that their supply chain requires. As you've seen in our numbers, we have and will continue to spend carefully on sales and marketing to support the RTN. And we'll do whatever is necessary to stay in our customer centric position. Our customer success has always been and continues to be priority one. While we are laser focused on Traceability, it's important to point out that our legacy compliance and supply chain businesses will continue to grow and generate increased cash flow. The sustainability and predictability of our recurring revenue based business model is clear and very powerful. Our annual recurring revenue hovers pretty close to 2 times our fixed costs and simultaneously supports a return of capital to shareholders. Despite our sunsetting of certain high touch, low opportunity revenue over the past 24 months, to the tune of over $1 million annual so far, we've grown annual recurring revenue, grown GAAP net income even more, grown earnings per share even faster and expanded our cash generation. So to summarize, one, we'll continue, as we always have, to take great care of our customers. The competitive advantage this brings to Traceability is even greater than our advantage in other services. Two, we've built a consistent cash generation machine with multiple consecutive years GAAP profitability, cash generation, and frankly, lots of return of capital to shareholders, as I'm sure you know. We continue to deploy our capital allocation strategy, buying back stock, both common and preferred, paying a dividend and growing our cash. As we did last year, the board will periodically review the capital allocation strategy, adjusting the dividend and the other levers we have based on our cash generation, earnings per share, just as they did with the dividend in November of 2023. As our results grow, we expect to increase the dividend, at the same time continuing to add cash to the balance sheet, further reinforcing our financial position. We maintain a fortress balance sheet, with more than $23 million of cash and no debt. Even after last few years of buying back 2 million shares of common stock, paying off $6 million in bank and other debt, and redeeming preferred and paying out a cash dividend. I think it's safe to say we have no need for more capital to be successful. Instead, we'll continue to focus on our customers. As John and I have said before, our business is efficient, easy to model, and we're positioned to scale. We've done it before. We're up to the task of doing it again. The net financial result is simple, faster, recurring revenue growth, even faster net income growth and, faster yet, EPS growth, meanwhile increasing the dividend to shareholders, reducing our capitalization and driving cash. So with that, I'd like to open it up now for questions. Operator?