Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for joining us for PureTech's 2026 half year results webcast.

Our half year report is available on the investors page of our website at puretechhealth.com. I would like to remind you that during today's call, we will be making certain forward-looking statements.

These statements are subject to various risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that could cause our actual results to differ materially, and we ask that you refer to our half year report for a complete discussion of these items. We undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements or information, except as required by law.

I also want to remind you that we will be referring to certain non-IFRS measures in this presentation. The presentation of this non-IFRS financial information is not intended to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for financial information presented in accordance with IFRS.

A reconciliation of the IFRS to non-IFRS measures that we will be referring to today can be found in this presentation and is also available on our Investor Relations website at investors.puretechhealth.com. I'm joined today by members of our management team: Robert Lyne, Chief Executive Officer; Eric Elenko, Co-Founder of PureTech and Acting Chief Executive Officer of Gallop; and Greg Zugates, Vice President of Research and Innovation.

With that, I'll turn the call over to Rob.

Thank you, Allison. Welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining us today.

We have made significant progress in 2026 and meaningfully executed against the refined strategy that we outlined last year. Today, I'll discuss that progress and how we are evolving the PureTech model to create value with greater capital efficiency and translate that value more directly to shareholders.

Across the portfolio, Seaport completed a successful IPO on Nasdaq, raising $260 million. Celea secured $180 million in external financing and initiated its Phase 3.

Gallop received Fast Track designation, validating the exciting potential of its treatment for rare blood cancers. We also continue to retain potential future economics from Cobenfy as part of our model, and are advancing our innovation engine.

We ended the first half of 2026 with PureTech-level cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments of $220 million, and we continue to expect our operational runway to extend at least through the end of 2028. Together, this progress demonstrates the significant value embedded across our portfolio and the strength of our hub-and-spoke model.

For those newer to our story, PureTech is a Boston-based, LSE-listed biotherapeutics company, operating a hub-and-spoke model with a proven clinical and financial track record. At the center of our model is an innovation engine focused on areas where PureTech has a proven ability to create value: those opportunities grounded in validated pharmacology.

We generate and derisk these programs internally and then seek to scale them through founded entities, or our spoke companies, backed by external capital. This approach also improves how we allocate capital.

By bringing in external capital at the founded entity level, we can preserve our PureTech balance sheet while retaining long-term upside through equity, milestones, and royalties. Historically, the timing of external financing has varied.

Going forward, we intend to seek external capital earlier in the development stage than we have done with our most recent founded entity, Celea Therapeutics. Importantly, because we develop programs internally, we typically begin with full ownership of the assets and proprietary intellectual property, which allows us to retain meaningful equity even after dilution, as well as the potential for non-dilutive economics in the form of royalties and milestones, reflecting our role in creating these programs.

The result is a model designed to generate attractive overall returns while limiting risk concentration. This model has produced three FDA-approved therapeutics, including Cobenfy, and has generated sufficient evergreen capital through opportunistic monetization of founded entities to advance our portfolio without the need for dilutive raises at the PureTech level.

Slide 7 provides a snapshot of our portfolio and the distinct components of value it contains: equity interests in our founded entities, royalty and milestone payments, and our innovation engine, which is designed to generate future opportunities. Celea is our most recent spin-out.

It is a Phase 3 pulmonary company advancing deupirfenidone, which follows our model of validated pharmacology, aimed to transform the treatment paradigm for IPF patients by taking FDA-approved pirfenidone and dramatically improving its efficacy through deuteration. Following the significant clinical and regulatory work completed at PureTech, Celea secured $180 million from leading healthcare investors and immediately initiated the global Phase 3 SUPASS-IPF trial.

The financing provided external validation of the program and delivered on our commitment to establish an independently financed path for its continued development. Today, PureTech holds a 35.4% equity interest and retains meaningful long-term economics through royalties, milestones, and sub-license income rights.

Gallop Oncology is a Phase 2-ready oncology company that is well positioned to attract external capital. We have successfully shepherded the company through the completion of its end-of-Phase 1 meeting with the FDA and secured Fast Track designation in relapsed/refractory high-risk MDS.

We currently own 100% of Gallop and intend to leverage external capital before initiating the Phase 2 STRIDE MDS trial. Seaport Therapeutics is a Phase 2 CNS company that we launched in 2024 having developed its platform at PureTech.

Following its oversubscribed private raises in 2024, Seaport Therapeutics, led by PureTech founder Daphne Zohar, successfully IPO-ed on Nasdaq in May, raising $260 million in gross proceeds. Its proprietary Glyph platform is designed to unlock the therapeutic potential of clinically validated mechanisms by addressing limitations that have historically constrained them.

We hold a 31.2% equity stake in Seaport, valued at approximately $360 million as of September 18, 2026, and also retain royalty and milestones in this company. The fourth component is our remaining economic interest in Cobenfy, an FDA-approved treatment for schizophrenia marketed by Bristol Myers Squibb.

PureTech invented Cobenfy, using our approach of building on clinically validated pharmacology, and housed the program in our founded entity Karuna Therapeutics. Through Karuna's development and subsequent acquisition by Bristol Myers Squibb, we have generated more than $1 billion from our collective Karuna and Cobenfy economics, and we retain potential Cobenfy-related royalty and milestone payments, which is a fundamental and differentiating element of the PureTech model.

Based on analyst consensus as of mid-August, we estimate approximately $50 million in potential future proceeds to PureTech from our remaining Cobenfy economic rights. Because this estimate is based on analyst consensus, rather than our own forecast, it may change as consensus evolves.

While the current estimates represent a material downgrade in potential economics from our last update at the full year, they also reinforce the value of our derisking transaction with Royalty Pharma in 2023, which delivered upfront cash of $100 million into PureTech and allowed us to realize significant value before Cobenfy reached commercial maturity while still retaining participation in future upside. We will continue to provide updates at our full and half year results on PureTech's economic outlook in Cobenfy sales based on evolving market consensuses.

Turning to cash flows. We do not factor any potential inflows from founded entities into our runway assumptions, such that any monetization events represent pure upside.

In line with our refined strategy, we are increasingly committed to ensuring that shareholders participate more directly as the value across our portfolio is realized. In practice, this means that we will prioritize maintaining an appropriate operational runway, selectively deploying capital where we see compelling risk-adjusted opportunities across the portfolio, and returning capital to shareholders.

As of June 30th, PureTech-level cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments were $220 million, which continues to provide operational runway at least through the end of 2028. I will discuss financial updates in more detail later on.

I would now like to welcome Eric Elenko, PureTech's Co-Founder and Gallop's Acting CEO, to discuss the latest developments of our wholly owned founded entity, Gallop Oncology.

Thank you, Rob. Gallop Oncology is our latest wholly owned founded entity, and I'm excited about the first-in-class mutation-agnostic approach we are advancing for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk MDS.

Our lead candidate, LYT-200, is a Phase 2-ready monoclonal antibody targeting galectin-9, an oncogenic driver and potent immunosuppressor that plays a role in some of the most difficult to treat cancers. LYT-200 has a dual mechanism of action.

It is designed to directly kill cancer cells while also restoring anti-tumor immune function. By addressing both tumor-intrinsic and tumor-mediated pathways, this approach is differentiated from existing therapies and has the potential to drive meaningful responses while maintaining a favorable safety profile.

High-risk MDS is a serious blood cancer associated with poor outcomes, with patients typically surviving less than 2 years following diagnosis. Front-line treatment typically involves a hypomethylating agent, or HMA.

However, the vast majority of patients do not respond or eventually stop benefiting. Once disease relapses or becomes refractory, survival is often limited to only a few months.

Treatment options in the relapsed/refractory settings are extremely limited. Only one therapy has been approved specifically for relapsed/refractory high-risk MDS in the past 2 decades, and it targets a mutation found in only approximately 3% of patients.

There is therefore a significant need for new treatment options that can benefit the broader patient population. Positive Phase 1b results establish a compelling clinical foundation for LYT-200 in relapsed or refractory high-risk MDS.

We completed a successful end-of-Phase 1 meeting with the FDA, which highlighted the compelling clinical efficacy and consistent safety profile of LYT-200 in high-risk MDS patients who had relapsed or become refractory to prior treatment with an HMA. The FDA meeting provided clarity on the Phase 2 STRIDE MDS trial, and Fast Track designation further strengthens Gallop's position as we seek external capital to support the next stage of development.

STRIDE MDS will be a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled Phase 2 trial enrolling approximately 125 patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk MDS. Patients will be randomized 2:2:1 to receive LYT-200 at a dose of 12 milligrams per kilogram plus an HMA, LYT-200 at 7.5 milligrams per kilogram plus an HMA, or placebo plus an HMA.

The trial will assess the efficacy of LYT-200 based on the rate of complete and partial responses and support dose selection. The goals of STRIDE MDS are to confirm the efficacy of LYT-200 that was previously observed in the Phase 1b study.

The inclusion of two doses is intended to fulfill the dose selection requirements in accordance with FDA's Project Optimus. The purpose of Project Optimus is to ensure that the sponsor companies prioritize the optimal biological dose over the maximum tolerated dose in oncology.

We intend to initiate STRIDE MDS following the completion of external financing. The amount of capital we'll be target-raising would support Gallop through the readout of the STRIDE MDS trial.

As Gallop reaches this important financing and development inflection point, I am pleased to have take on the role of Gallop's Acting CEO, as I will be dedicating significant time and focus to its advancement. At the same time, I'll remain actively involved in PureTech's innovation activities, working closely with the team as we advance the next wave of opportunities.

With that, I'd like to introduce Greg Zugates, PureTech's Vice President of Innovation and Research. Greg and I have worked together at PureTech for more than a decade, and he has been instrumental in refocusing our innovation engine around the areas where PureTech has historically demonstrated the greatest ability to create value.

He has been leading our innovation efforts on a day-to-day basis, and I'm pleased to have him walk through our innovation framework today.

Thank you, Eric. As Rob noted, our innovation strategy is now firmly centered on validated pharmacology.

PureTech's greatest successes have come from identifying mechanisms or molecules that have already demonstrated meaningful activity in humans, understanding the limitations that have prevented them from reaching their full potential, and designing differentiated solutions to overcome those limitations. We call this framework our LIFE model: launching innovation from existing pharmacology.

As shown on this slide, our LIFE model begins with a focus on patients, by identifying areas with significant unmet medical need. We then identify mechanisms or molecules with demonstrated clinical efficacy that have been otherwise held back from reaching their full potential due to reasons unrelated to efficacy.

Using this clinically validated framework, we design novel therapeutic concepts that are specifically intended to preserve efficacy while overcoming those limitations. We evaluate each solution using focused proof-of-concept experiments, which are preclinical studies designed to determine if our therapeutic concepts meet key predefined success criteria and overcome the previous limitations.

We also require each opportunity to support the development of a strong intellectual property portfolio and offer a compelling proposition for physicians and payers with blockbuster potential. By building on pharmacology that has already been validated in humans, we believe that this approach can enable us to innovate with greater speed, lower technical risk, and greater capital efficiency than traditional de novo drug discovery.

Each year, we aim to advance at least three opportunities to the concept stage, with the goal that these may form the foundation of future development candidates. We expect to share additional detail on our progress in the first half of 2027.

The approach within our LIFE framework emulates the same innovation principles that produced Karuna Therapeutics and Cobenfy, Seaport Therapeutics, and Celea Therapeutics. Each began with a significant patient need and clinically validated pharmacology whose potential had been constrained by a specific limitation.

The PureTech team then designed a novel solution to address that limitation, generated proprietary intellectual property, and conducted focused proof-of-concept experimentation to substantially derisk the concept. These programs have generated compelling clinical data, and in the case of Cobenfy, ultimately led to FDA approval and a new medicine for patients suffering from debilitating mental illness.

They provide important validation of the capabilities and approach we are now applying systematically to create PureTech's next wave of opportunities. I'm proud of the work we have underway, and I look forward to sharing more about our progress next year.

With that, I'll hand the call back to Rob.

Thanks, Eric and Greg. The work they have described represents two important sources of future value for PureTech: advancing Gallop through its next inflection point and applying a focused, capital-efficient approach to generate the next wave of opportunities for patients and shareholders.

Turning to our financial highlights. PureTech remains in a strong financial position, supported by our business model and continued focus on capital discipline.

At the PureTech level, we ended June 2026 with cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments of approximately $220 million, compared to cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments of $277.1 million at year-end 2025. On a consolidated basis, our cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments were $220.1 million at the end of June 2026, as compared to cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments of $277.3 million at year-end 2025.

From this $220 million cash figure, I note that the balance of $17.5 million of the overall $30 million we contributed to the Celea raise was completed just after the half year, and therefore this $17.5 million will come out of the $220 million cash figure I mentioned. In addition, going forward, we have reserved $70 million for future investment into Celea.

Whilst not legally committed, we think it prudent to have this provision to allow strategic optionality to preserve and support our interest in this important company, whilst reserving the flexibility to respond to specific deal terms and other opportunities to allocate capital within the PureTech model. On a consolidated basis, operating expenses were $55.9 million in the first six months of 2026, as compared to $49.8 million in the same period in 2025.

The increase between these two periods reflects higher R&D spend in the first half of 2026 associated with the preparation for Celea's Phase 3 trials of deupirfenidone. Importantly, the majority of opex in this first half is attributable to Celea and Gallop, heavily skewed towards Celea.

As future expenses related to deupirfenidone have now shifted to Celea, PureTech expects a significant reduction in overall operating expenses moving forward. Looking ahead, based on our existing financial assets as of June 30th, 2026, we reiterate our operational runway at least through the end of 2028.

This runway excludes any inflows from potential future monetization events, and assumes full deployment of the additional $70 million that PureTech has reserved for potential future investment in Celea. To close, the progress made in 2026 so far demonstrates both the value embedded across our portfolio and the meaningful execution underway against our strategy.

Celea has entered Phase 3 with the backing of leading external investors. Seaport has completed a successful IPO on Nasdaq.

Gallop has achieved important clinical and regulatory milestones and is positioned for external financing and Phase 2 development. Our innovation team is applying our proven approach to innovation to generate the next wave of opportunities.

At the same time, we are substantially reducing the capital required at the PureTech level and taking an increasingly disciplined approach to how we deploy future proceeds. We will prioritize maintaining an appropriate operational runway, investing selectively where we see compelling risk-adjusted opportunities, and looking to return capital to shareholders.

With significant value embedded across our portfolio, a strong financial position, and a repeatable innovation engine, we believe PureTech is well positioned to create meaningful, long-term value for patients and shareholders. With that, I'll turn the call back to the operator, and we would be pleased to take your questions.

Hi there. Thanks for taking my questions.

Just a couple. I'll start on the planned design of STRIDE MDS.

Appreciate there's clearly a benefit to pursuing a mutation-agnostic approach in this setting. Are you planning to look at any specific biomarkers in this study?

Then sort of second question, just thinking about sort of the next wave of programs that you've guided you'll unveil next year. How should we be thinking about that?

Obviously, you said clinically validated targets, but in terms of disease areas and willingness to be [in an?] [unclear].

Thanks.

Thanks, Sean. I'll ask Eric just to speak to the STRIDE MDS trial design as Acting CEO of Gallop.

Hi, Sean. Thanks so much for the question.

You're right that the approach here is a mutation-agnostic one. That really [need is?]

in this space. In [the lab for factor?]

KRAS pathway, Bcor, DNMT3A, what we do feel is, although as you spread out the number of mutations across the number of patients we had, of course that means any one mutation was only represented to a smaller extent, it does mean that the sampling of mutations was more representative of what we might see in a subsequent study. That made us feel quite good about the approach.

The FDA was fine with a mutation-agnostic approach and did not require any type of biomarker selection. As of this time, we don't have plans for biomarker

selection. Okay.

Thanks for that.

Super. Then, Sean, just on your other question, I believe, around in terms of our areas of focus for future innovation, I'll ask Greg to speak in a moment, but a high-level, we say are generally agnostic, but we do have a little bit of a bias, particularly in areas where we've had success before.

I'll just ask Greg to say a few words to that.

Thanks for the question, Sean. Far this year, we have multiple opportunities we've identified that potentially fit our model.

It includes opportunities based on validated pharmacology, as you've noted, and it can form the basis for development candidates in the future. These opportunities, as Rob mentioned, continue to expand in areas that have been historically successful for PureTech, and that includes a continued focus on small molecule-based therapeutics and also CNS as a therapeutic area for identifying additional indications.

Specifically within CNS, we had success with Cobenfy and Seaport, and looking at opportunities in neuropsychiatry, and that's an area we're continuing to explore. That said, as we've discussed, we do remain somewhat agnostic to indication, to an extent, because we believe our model is broadly applicable, and could bring impactful therapies to patients suffering from disorders outside of CNS, and still have blockbuster potential.

We're happy to provide more details in 2027.

Right. Perfect.

Thanks for that. I'll jump back in the queue.

Thank you. Good morning.

Hopefully you can hear me. If I could just follow up on the STRIDE MDS trial—I appreciate you're not guiding for kind of cost window for that, but can you just help me understand what the timeline for that trial might look like?

Is it similar in format at least or for the time for TIBSOVO? Then secondly, Rob, if I can ask a broader question perhaps on Celea first.

Obviously since that's now spun out, you guys have a smaller control holding of that. Now Seaport obviously has phenomenally successfully built out its programs and platform offering.

Is there any plans at Celea to do a similar thing or is it a pure-play IPF single asset? Many thanks.

Thanks, Miles. I'll speak to the Celea question first and then hand over to Eric on Gallop.

As you say, obviously, Seaport has really done great things in terms of building out their pipeline of programs. At the moment, Celea has publicly stated it has its single asset, the IPF asset, which is obviously now in Phase 3.

I would note, of course, that is now a pivotal registrational trial. To some extent, they have a different stage of development there at that business and they now have line of sight through to a pivotal readout, which we hope obviously would be registrational.

Today, there hasn't been any disclosures from Celea about additional assets that they may or may not bring in or develop, but obviously that is something that the company will consider as it matures. We have previously guided that obviously we're pleased with the raise they did in the summer, raising enough cash through to year-end, but it is inevitable that they will need to raise additional money in order to complete the Phase 3.

That may bring opportunities for them to consider other programs that they may wish to advance, but if and when that's something they wish to do, Celea will make announcements of that and in the future. In terms of the Gallop program, I'll just hand over to Eric just to talk on that piece.

Thanks so much, Miles, for the question. The Gallop trial will commence following receipt of external capital.

Just also to make that part of any timing clear. The initial projections, which are on the more conservative side, just want to give that caveat is, this would be probably somewhat under 3 years to complete the study as currently contemplated.

Again, those are using somewhat more conservative projections in terms of recruitment rates. Now, of course, what's going to happen is the actual timeline, is that more around 30 months or 33 months, will depend also ultimately on the number of sites that are selected, as well as the ultimate recruiting rates that are observed in those sites.

As we think about the go-forward, we like to think about things on the more conservative side.

Great. Thank you.

Perhaps if I can just follow up on Gallop specifically. You've had a variety of formats, but how are you thinking about financing?

Is that more partnership or syndication, strategic partnerships with pharma? Then lastly, Rob, if I can, on capital allocation.

Obviously, you've got a phenomenal amount of, let's call it, resources that dwarf the market cap. How are you thinking about capital allocation moving forward?

Thank you.

Yeah. On that point, Miles.

Yes, we're looking at a range of options for Gallop at this stage. We believe both the indication and the data we have are exciting enough that it opens up different possibilities.

What we're looking at really, and this maybe links even a little bit into your question on capital allocation, the way we do really think about it is it's all about the relative costs of capital. Different funding structures, whether it's equity, whether it's a pharma partnership, whatever it may be, they all come with different costs to them, whether it's equity dilution, whether it's capping upside, some of them can come with upfront cash.

We want to remain open-minded about that as we think about the relative cost of capital of the different options to help gain external cash in order to take that forward. Obviously, as and when we complete any arrangements there, we will make that known.

We've guided that we really want to complete that financing by the first half of next year. Part of the reason for that timing is to give us the opportunity to really take a hold-of-market approach to looking at the optimal funding sources that we can leverage there without being forced to rush into any particular avenues.

Looking forward in due course to explaining where we get to with that. More broadly, as you say, yes, we do see multiple pockets of value across the business in terms of resources that we have, which we think about in terms of capital allocation.

As I think we've indicated in some of the remarks this morning, our focus really is we want to make sure that we have operational runway within the business. We don't want to be holding too much cash, notwithstanding raises in rates at the moment.

Obviously, we are not generating great returns in terms of cash piles, as isn't where we create value. We create value by putting those dollars to work, and in other instances, where we can by returning them to shareholders so that shareholders can reinvest them as they see fit.

We are focused on not holding too much cash, but we want to make sure that we have sufficient cash runway without any pressure or concern about any dilutive raises at the PureTech level. When we then think within the portfolio, one of the advantages of our model is that we have different opportunities to deploy capital, and these can range really from very late-stage opportunities, for example, we've reserved $70 million for future Celea financing, which will be, if needed, to help that company get through to a pivotal trial readout, all the way at the other end of the spectrum to the early-stage innovation programs that Greg and the team are working on.

When we're thinking about how we allocate capital within that, we are looking at what kind of a return we can make, what sort of a money multiple we will get, recognizing that obviously there are different time horizons for returns that may come from those investments. Then the other component that we have talked about this morning, of course, is considering capital returns to shareholders.

We are very conscious that there is substantial value within PureTech. Whilst we cannot control obviously where the share price trades, we recognize that capital returns are a mechanism to ensure that shareholders directly benefit from the cash and value that we generate within PureTech.

We do think about those different components and we look to balance them. We feel that we're in a good place now with where things are in terms of the assets of the company to have choices ahead of us on those decisions.

Great. Sounds good, Rob.

Greg, look forward to the first half next year hearing about some of those new programs. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Morning, guys.

Thanks for taking the questions. I guess just follow up another one on Gallop and STRIDE trial.

I guess just set the case, I guess, is this largely a best case sort of trial design as you could have imagined it sort of running in on those discussions you had with the FDA? As you then think about the presumably this is supportive of the financing potential partnerships that presumably have had some discussions already, that it sort of ticks those boxes?

Then in terms of the trial itself, obviously, the objective here, dose selection and secondary on response, but given the unmet need, if you do get a very strong response, is it potentially a pivotal trial or is that probably a bit of a stretch too far at this point? Thanks.

Super.

Thanks, Christian. I'll ask Eric just to speak to those points.

Thanks so much, Christian, for the question. We were happy with the results of the FDA meeting, which provided a very clear direction forward.

The goals of the trial really are twofold: one is to confirm the efficacy that was observed in the Phase 1b study, and the other is to satisfy the FDA's Project Optimus requirements in terms of dose, as you indicated, that's one of the key goals. Project Optimus really being the idea that instead of driving towards the maximum tolerated dose, one's driving towards a biologically meaningful and active dose.

We feel the FDA meeting was a very important step in terms of getting clarity, and we are happy with the trial design. Of course, we're also very happy with the Fast Track designation, which the FDA granted, which validates the view that LYT-200 in fact is an active drug.

In terms of the implications of this trial, what differs from the Phase 1b versus the Phase 2 STRIDE MDS study is not only the greater number of subjects, but also the fact that it's a double-blind, randomized study. The idea is to not only confirm what we saw before, but do it in the context where there will be this very clear discernment of the contribution of effect of LYT-200 in the context of combination with HMA, which is very important.

What would be the implications of that? We think that if in fact we're able to show similar results and in fact show efficacy and confirm efficacy of LYT-200 coming out of STRIDE MDS, particularly if it had a similar safety profile that was observed in Phase 1b, which was excellent, we think that will put Gallop in a very good position in terms of optionality.

That optionality is both we think commercial and financial, kind of what I think you're getting at, and then it could offer the possibility of more streamlined next steps in terms of development. Of course, that would depend on the data and discussions with the FDA.

Just to be very explicit about the third part of your question, we are not guiding that this is a pivotal study. Having said that, the data that would come out of this, we would view as extremely meaningful.

Thanks, that's helpful. Then if I can on the overall sort of development strategy, just a bit more in terms of how many, you talked about the three concept-stage programs, sounds like you're going to be announcing maybe one new specific development candidate early next year, first half of next year.

Typically how many of these things are sort of running in parallel at any one time, you have the bandwidth to run in parallel? Then, what's in the mix in terms of decision points about identifying that candidate?

Thanks.

Yeah. Thanks, Christian.

Look, I'll hand over in a minute to Greg to talk about some of the factors we take into account when we're considering how to advance those programs. Overall, as you say, we've guided that we want at least three concept-stage programs per year.

We're currently running ahead of that, I'm pleased to say. We've been pleasantly surprised by both the quantity, but also the quality of the opportunities we have there.

As you said, Christian, we aren't planning to talk about any of those in detail until next year. I think as and when we are able to speak about them, I think many people who follow the PureTech story will certainly recognize the PureTech hallmarks on those programs in terms of having come from the LIFE model and will see a lot of similarities with the success that we've had with Karuna Cobenfy and more recently with Seaport and Celea.

I'll just hand over to Greg to talk a little bit just about some of the factors we take into account when we're considering whether to advance or deprioritize these programs internally.

Yeah. Thank you for the question.

We go through a very rigorous process, and kind of outlined it here in, I would say, broad strokes to give you a sense for how we approach these these opportunities. It starts with an analysis of the unmet clinical need.

We progress through and look for molecules and mechanisms that have validation, and we look for their limitations. Specifically diving in a little bit more, we really pressure-test that clinical data and really discuss it with leading clinicians in the field, and really understand the weight of the clinical evidence that's behind it.

As we advance programs through the preclinical stage, we have a set of predefined criteria for our preclinical experiments that we'll look for. We advance them through, I would say, key proof-of-concept experiments that are really designed to see if we've addressed the underlying limitations.

Once we do that, that can then form the basis for a developmental candidate that we can advance forward.

Great. That's helpful.

Thank you.

Sure, absolutely. Yes, quite right.

One of the key drivers for spinning out Celea is obviously these late-stage clinical programs require very significant operational capital spend to continue advancing them. A priority for us was to ensure that we could externalize that spend and take it away from PureTech's P&L.

As that completed just over the half year, we're now expecting that to significantly benefit PureTech cash flows in H2 this year. In terms of go-forward cash burn, we're looking at the moment on a clean basis to be having cash burn, including overhead, but also crucially our innovation spend, somewhere between $30 million and $40 million a year.

That is obviously a significant reduction from the roughly $90 million a year cash burn we had when we were running some of these later-stage clinical programs internally.

A very good question, but I think we've probably addressed that earlier to saying that, as Greg outlined, there's a really rigorous process that we go through, and again, that's informed not just by the innovation team and the work they're doing, but also the broader corporate knowledge and history we have at PureTech. There are many people working hard in the field of drug development, but within PureTech, we really do have the benefit of having taken programs all the way through to registration, approval, and dosing to patients.

Really, for us, that benefit of having that institutional knowledge of what it means to take a program all the way through ideation through to benefiting patients, that is a really valuable perspective that we can bring to these early-stage programs when we're thinking about whether to greenlight them, how far to take them forward, and what the best way is of advancing those programs.

Thanks very much. Just more on the innovation pipeline.

Just wondering when you're going to tell us about these programs, at what stage are they going to be? Is that sort of where you've still got more preclinical work to do or is it going to be so they're actually going into the clinic in your format first time?

A good question, Julie. I think really where they will get to, there may still be a degree of preclinical work that's being done, but I think the key thing is, as Greg was outlining earlier, that we will have done some of the really key derisking experiments.

The great advantage of our LIFE model is that we know what problem we're trying to fix, and we feel that even the preclinical studies that we do can be very meaningful in indicating whether or not we've really fixed that problem. Big advantage when we move into the clinic, of course, is that the Phase 1 studies then are significantly derisking, even in healthy volunteers.

There's every chance that that study in itself will be very, very indicative as to whether we've really overcome the limitation that we were seeking to fix. There may still be a bit of preclinical work to be done at the time we're talking around these programs, but we would only be really pulling the covers off at a stage where we have a high degree of confidence that there's really a strong chance of success going forward with them.

Lovely. Thank you.