Thanks, Brian, and good afternoon, everyone. I'll build on Brian's comments by focusing on four areas: revenue quality, gross margin, cash usage in the quarter and capital allocation. Starting with the top line. Net sales were $19.4 million in the first quarter, up 8.9% versus the prior year. That growth was supported by both volume and price, with pounds shipped up 7.6% and average selling prices up 5.2%. In a soft and uncertain industry environment that is an important signal. Our growth is not market-dependent. It is execution led. We are winning business, expanding customer relationships and converting pipeline into revenue. That is the most important first step. In this environment, winning and holding the right business comes first. Optimization follows. And as Brian said, we have a high degree of confidence in our team's ability to do that. That said, the key question in the quarter is not revenue growth. It is gross margin. But before getting there, I'll briefly walk through the rest of the P&L. SG&A was $5 million in the quarter, up approximately $300,000 year-over-year, but lower as a percentage of sales at 26.4% compared to 27.3% last year. The increase was primarily driven by salaries, wages and benefits, rent expense and stock comp. Partially offset by lower incentive bonus expense. Importantly, we view part of the spend as investments in the commercial and technical capability required to support the type of business we are winning. These are not transactional sales cycles. They require responsiveness, formulation knowledge, regulatory awareness, production coordination and a willingness to work alongside customers to solve complex problems not simply ship product. That is why we continue to build the technical bench and customer support model needed to pursue higher value opportunities and deepen long-term partnerships. We also recognize that our current SG&A structure is heavy relative to the size of the business today. That is intention, but it has to translate into growth in earning leverage. We have built the organization to support a materially larger specialties chemicals platform. Roughly 50% to 65% revenue growth from the '25 baseline without requiring the same level of incremental overhead as the business scales. Our objectives are clear as we invest in this area. Support growth with best-in-class service and technical execution while ensuring that each dollar of revenue growth carries more efficiently through to earnings over time. Further down the P&L, other income was favorable in the quarter, driven primarily by interest income from our cash balance and sublease income. We had no debt outstanding on the revolver at quarter end, so the balance sheet continued to contribute positively below the operating line rather than creating a financing drag. Net loss from continuing operations was $2 million, and adjusted EBITDA was a loss of approximately $1 million. Those results are not where we expect the business to be over time, but they also reflect a quarter where reported earnings lagged the commercial progress and operational work already underway. Now turning to gross profit and margin. Gross profit was $2.8 million or 14.5% of sales compared to $3.1 million or 17.2% of sales in the prior year quarter. In dollar terms, gross profit declined by approximately $257,000 year-over-year despite the higher revenue base. That is not the margin profile we expect from this business, and we are treating it with the level of focus it deserves. As Brian said, the margin compression in Q1 was not driven by a loss of pricing discipline for its deterioration in the customer book. In fact, the clearest evidence is in material economics. Standard material cost was approximately $0.61 per pound in Q1 compared to approximately $0.71 per pound in Q4 and approximately $0.66 per pound for full year 2025. The material side of the business was not the source of the compression. Sourcing actions and cost discipline helped protect contribution dollars even as volumes increased. The pressure was concentrated in nonmaterial COGS, timing, absorption, routing, labor efficiency, overhead recovery, utilities, freight and other plant level costs that show up in new or growing programs move through the system before sourcing, production cadence, inventory positioning and plant loading are fully optimized. Utilities were a real example of that pressure in the quarter. January and February utility costs ran materially above the Q4 monthly run rate, creating roughly 150 to 175 basis point headwind to Q1 gross margin before considering any offsetting actions. But the larger point is that these presses were concentrated in controllable conversion costs, not in raw material economics or broad pricing deterioration. Deferred manufacturing variance is also a meaningful timing headwind. As Q1 shipments increased and inventory declined, manufacturing costs previously embedded in inventory flowed through cost of sales. That effect alone represented approximately $600,000 or roughly 290 basis points of Q1 sales. And the sequential swing versus Q4 was approximately $900,000 to $1 million. That is exactly why we view the quarter as a timing and absorption issue. The cost was created as programs are being ramped and inventory was being built, then recognizes that inventory converted to revenue. The key distinction is that pressure is operational, not structural. We want attractive business quickly, and now the work is to optimize that volume through better sourcing, routing, campaign planning, inventory positioning, production loading and absorption. In this market, winning and holding the right business comes first. Optimization follows what the volume is inside the platform. That creates near-term margin noise, but it also gives us control over the levers that drive durable improvement. We are not satisfied with Q1 margin, but we do view it as the -- we do not view it as a new baseline. The business is winning, material economics remain intact and corrective actions are underway. As they take hold, we expect captured volume become more efficient, repeatable and profitable. Turning to cash. We ended the quarter with $47.8 million of cash and no debt outstanding under our credit facility. That compares to $57.6 million of cash at year-end. The cash balance declined by approximately $9.8 million during the quarter. The movement deserves a direct explanation. The largest use of cash was capital allocation. We repurchased approximately 296,000 shares during the quarter for $3.9 million at an average price of $12.92 per share. While we do not evaluate buybacks based on short-term stock movements, the discipline of that deployment is already evident. Compared to the May 5 closing price of $14.94, those repurchases were made at an approximately 16% discount, representing roughly $600,000 of implied value creation in less than 2 months. More importantly, we believe those shares were repurchased at prices well below our view of long-term intrinsic value and not at the expense of operational flexibility as we ended the quarter with nearly $48 million of cash, no revolver debt and $14.2 million of remaining availability under our credit facility. Looking beyond the quarter, since January 1, 2025, we have repurchased approximately 1.18 million shares for roughly $14.9 million at a weighted average price of approximately $12.61 per share. That represents roughly 11% to 12% of the beginning 2025 share base repurchased on a gross basis. While we are rebuilding the operating platform, we have also been materially reducing the share count at prices we believe are attractive relative to the long-term value of the business. The second major use of cash was investment in the business and our people. We paid approximately $2.2 million of incentive compensation during the quarter, reflecting the work completed in 2025 to reposition Ascent into a pure-play specialty chemicals platform. We fully understand that compensation will be scrutinized in a quarter with negative adjusted EBITDA and margin pressure. We do as well. But we also believe retaining, aligning and rewarding the team that executed the divestitures, simplified the company, stabilize the platform and are now driving the commercial and operational reset is a rational investment in the durability of the business. The third major use of cash is working capital. Net working capital consumed approximately $3.2 million of cash in the quarter. That was driven primarily by higher receivables as revenue increased, timing of customer collections and vendor payments and the normalization of accruals after year-end. Inventory was actually a source of cash in the quarter, improving by approximately $1.3 million, which is an important point. We are not simply building inventory without discipline. We are funding the working capital required to support new and growing programs while continuing to manage inventory tightly. So when you look at the roughly $10 million decline in cash, we would frame it this way. Approximately $3.9 million went to repurchasing shares and what we believe were attractive prices. Approximately $2.2 million went to incentive compensation tied to the transformational work completed last year, approximately $3.2 million went to net working capital, much of it connected to supporting the revenue growth and timing dynamics of the quarter and approximately $400,000 went to capital expenditures. This is not a recurring operating cash burn profile we are comfortable with or expect to normalize. It is a quarter in which cash was used to support three deliberate priorities: return capital when the valuation is compelling, invest in the team responsible for execution and fund the working capital needed to convert pipeline into revenue and optimize the business we have already won. This also ties directly to our acquisition strategy. The Midwest acquisition is consistent with the same capital allocation framework. This is a relationship-driven transaction developed through the kind of industry knowledge, technical familiarity and long-term commercial connectivity that we believe are critical in disciplined small-cap industrial acquisitions. We are not pursuing scale for the sake of scale. We are not buying capacity to fill plants. We are prioritizing higher-quality product revenue, customer intimacy, technical application know-how and opportunities where Ascent's platform can improve sourcing, commercial reach and operating support. The underwriting reflects that discipline. We are acquiring a business with existing earnings quality, a purchase price supported by current cash flow rather than speculative pipeline assumption and a pre-synergy gross margin profile of roughly 25% even before purchase accounting adjustments and the benefit of Ascent-led sourcing cost and commercial initiatives. This is not a transaction that requires us to manufacture the thesis after closing. The business already has the margin structure, customer relationships and product orientation we want more of the new portfolio. Importantly, we expect Midwest to be immediately accretive to annual adjusted EBITDA with upside as we execute on identified costs, sourcing and commercial opportunities. That expected contribution is not dependent on aggressive market recovery assumptions. It is supported by existing earnings quality and the ability to bring a more complete operating platform around a high-quality product business. Our capital allocation priorities remain straightforward: protect the balance sheet, fund the operating improvements required to expand gross margin, invest behind our return organic growth, pursue disciplined acquisitions where the underwriting is supported by existing earnings quality and repurchase shares when the risk-adjusted return is compelling relative to other uses of capital. Q1 was not a clean quarter from a margin standpoint, but it was a quarter in which the business grew. The balance sheet remains strong and capital was deployed towards assets we understand, our shares, our people, our working capital engine and a higher quality product portfolio.