EBITDA BRIDGE — Q3 Budget vs Actual
Materiality filter: variances over $25K or 5% shown; rest rolled to Other.

  Budget EBITDA .......................... $1,840K
  ───────────────────────────────────────────────
  Revenue — volume        −$310K  ← the story is here
  Revenue — price         +$140K
  Revenue — mix           − $60K
  COGS — volume-driven    +$180K   (flows with the volume miss)
  Payroll — headcount     −$220K
  Payroll — timing        + $90K
  Marketing               − $70K
  Other (below threshold) − $30K
  ───────────────────────────────────────────────
  Actual EBITDA .......................... $1,600K   miss: $240K

WHAT THE DECOMPOSITION SAYS THAT THE TOTAL HIDES
The $240K miss is NOT a spending problem. It's a volume problem partly
masked by good pricing.

  Revenue: you lost $310K on volume but clawed $140K back on price —
  you held or raised prices into a soft quarter. Net revenue driver
  is −$230K, and it's demand, not discounting.

  Payroll: −$220K headcount looks like an overrun, but +$90K of timing
  says planned hires landed early, not that you overspent on comp. Net
  −$130K, and it's a phasing issue that reverses.

  COGS +$180K is favorable and mechanical — you sold less, so you spent
  less to make it. Not a win, just the other side of the volume miss.

THE ONE SENTENCE FOR THE BOARD
"We missed by $240K driven almost entirely by lower volume ($230K net
of a favorable pricing offset); the payroll variance is early hiring
timing that normalizes in Q4, not a structural cost overrun."

WHERE TO LOOK NEXT
The volume miss. Price held, so this isn't a competitiveness problem —
it's pipeline or seasonality. Pull the volume variance by product line
and I'll tell you if it's concentrated or broad.