Hello, everybody. Ladies and gentlemen, dear investors, let me shortly introduce myself because we meet in many cases for the first time.

My name is Dr. Maximilian Slawinski, and I'm since May the new CEO of Canatu.

I'm part of the semiconductor, automotive, and new energy industry since almost two decades. My first 100 days at Canatu have been progressed, and they have just confirmed my hopes to join a company leading in one of the most emerging segments in the entire deep tech industry.

We will present today beside our H1 results some remarkable achievements the company has been able to perform within the last 100 days. You most probably heard already yesterday about our great news of our recent reactor order from FST, the first since our SPAC, the first since almost three years, and most important, even ahead our new plan to target more than €100 million revenue by 2030.

We will furthermore present today our Polaris program. We published already our management reorganization, and I will go a little bit deeper into this today.

We will present our new strategy towards targeting more than €100 million revenue by 2030 based on a focused and fast execution in organically strong-growing and profitable markets as well also presenting our vision for 2035. A third pillar of our Polaris program will explain our implemented cost measures, securing a disciplined cash management with a streamlined Canatu, including headcount adjustments.

I believe that today's presented achievements are a testimony what Canatu, what the Canatu team is able to improve and transform in a short amount of time as a result of an energized team willing to win. I I hope you will come to the same conclusion as me experiencing this company just performing a pivotal moment for future success.

Let's start. Where is Canatu already world-class?

I think Canatu has proven already in the past that we are able to industrialize products and to mass-manufacture them based on our dry deposition technology. I think good examples are the about 1 million sensors we delivered in the automotive and defense industry, as well as more than 5,000 inspection membranes fault-free since 2021.

This is a strong foundation. We also are short before entering new markets, promising, strong-growing new markets, in particular, of course, the CNT pellicle market, as well as heaters for advanced ADAS systems.

Canatu is very strong in industrializing the property tuning of CNTs. This property tuning is resulting in physical properties responding to the most important challenges of the industries we are targeting.

Last but not least, Canatu has established very deep and long-term relationships to global leading companies, which I have to say is in that magnitude remarkable for a company compared to Canatu's size. Here, the company is already world-class.

Nevertheless, that's not enough, and Canatu needs to improve. Canatu needs, in particular, to improve in the execution to hit its commercial ambitions.

Therefore, we need to be more focused. We will present today a strategy reducing the complexity of our company, the complexity of our operations.

We had in the past too many balls in the air, and we have to catch the most valuable ones. We have to invest all our resources into scalable product roadmap execution instead of engineering projects.

Canatu needs to be in future more customer-focused and less research-driven. Last but not least, the allocation of our development resources needs to be based more on commercial metrics.

Therefore, we introduce the Polaris program, our transformation program of the company. We already published the changes in governance.

We have now a five-people executive management team fully staffed from next week onwards. We recruited Bernd Mayer as CMO and Walter Braun as CTO, two experienced international executives with a strong track record in our target industries.

We changed the old New Business Development department more to a Fellow Office with a stronger focus on our IP strategy. We established new departments to support top-line growth, in particular, business development to tackle the OEM of our the OEMs of our end markets, as well as new product management functions in the business units to accelerate time to revenue, as well as focus stronger on productization.

The project management will go back into R&D in the future. Last but not least, the business units will have the project ownership of our most important R&D projects.

With respect to the strategy, we are clarifying our business models. The semiconductor business unit will remain a product business in the inspection product line.

In the semiconductor manufacturing segment, the bigger part of the TAM, we will focus to be an equipment and technology provider. The former automotive business unit, which is now the robotics, mobility, and defense business unit, will be a pure product business with a clear focus on strong-growing markets in automotive, robotics, and defense.

The medical business unit remains a product business. We have prioritized on our roadmap based on the value we deliver.

A strong indicator for this is the euro per square centimeter value we introduced to evaluate the value our products deliver, and we stopped selling engineering services. In the OPEX adjustment, we are planning to reduce the headcount up to 17 full-time employees.

We will limit our yearly CAPEX until 2030 to less than €6 million per year. We are introducing the revenue per employee in 2030 as a new KPI, and we will discontinue low-value R&D projects.

In the first 100 days, we started to successfully sharpen our company, remaining, of course, an innovation leader and building a structurally high-margin business. We will focus in future stronger on top-line, on scalable top-line growth.

What remains is our commitment to achieve more than €100 million in revenue by 2030, and we add the vision to grow with more than 20% per year CAGR until 2035. Let let me shortly talk about our executive leadership team.

This has been restructured. The company is now led by a five-people executive management team.

We could add to the team Walter Braun and Bernd Mayer, two very experienced executives from the semiconductor equipment, semiconductor device, and robotics industry. I strongly believe that their experience, their track record, and their management skills will improve the company significantly.

I also strongly believe that the newly introduced matrix structure within Canatu will increase our resource allocation and resource efficiency and our product and business focus. The business units will in future be internal customers within the company, in particular, owning the business cases and the business unit strategies, while the operational leadership will sustain the executive management and the business unit leaders in their daily work.

What remains is, of course, our core. Canatu's DNA is a dry deposition technology.

It's a strong competitive moat. As mentioned, we have proven already in the past with about 1 million sensors delivered in the automotive and defense market, as well as more than 5,000 inspection membranes, that we are able to industrialize and produce products, differentiating products based on that technology.

Along the three business units, we work in different business models, including manufacturing partners, enabling us to integrate up to OEM level. Our backbone remain our strong patent portfolio, where we will even more aggressively grow the number of patents and families in the future as a backbone, also enabling us to commercialize, of course, royalties and fees in the future.

Our three business units are tackling from different directions, I would say, very hot markets in the in the in our society. For sure, the most discussed market and maybe also the most interesting market is the artificial intelligence market.

As artificial intelligence is not working without memories, GPUs, and CPUs. Our pellicle technology is a big part manufacturing these devices and boosting the manufacturing these devices in the future.

When we think about humanoid robots, we also have to talk about actors and sensors, and we are pretty fast at LiDAR and other solutions, as well as tactile sensors. This is an example, when you include humanoid AI, how two different business units at Canatu tackle the same end market.

A similar situation we have in autonomous driving. We talk a lot about the ADAS heaters, but of course, an autonomous car needs also memories, GPUs, and CPUs.

Also here, again, two business units are part of the same end market with a different with different positions in the supply chain. We do successful business already today in the defense market, and we target to expand this.

Also here, beside our RMD business unit, GPUs and memories will be important in future defense solutions. Canatu is, of course, targeting to be part of the semiconductor manufacturing industry.

Last but not least, medical diagnostics: Here, we are even integrating up to an full solution provider. Again, semiconductors will help in the analysis of diagnostics and improving its efficiency.

It shows our business units deliver from different perspectives to the most important end markets of society without increasing the complexity of Canatu. Let me shortly explain the just-mentioned disciplined portfolio prioritization.

I mentioned in the beginning that we allocate in future our development resources in particular with respect to commercial indicators. Here, you see an example how we will prioritize in future our product roadmap.

You see that we fully focus on the highest CNT per square centimeter value we identified for our most promising products, and on the other side, also focus strongly on high-growing end markets. As you can see, extreme high value we expect to deliver in the hormone testing market, as well we already proved to deliver in the inspection filters, while in the RMD market, we have even a wider portfolio, a wider end market spectrum, and extremely organically strong-growing markets, in particular, when we think about robotics and industrial sensing.

About our markets: I know it has been already evaluated a lot of times, and here, I want to highlight, first of all, the semiconductor market. On the right side, you see the advanced node market starting from 7 nm and below in the structure.

You see that the 2 nm and below segment is just a minority part today, but it will dominate the advanced node market in the future. Here, in particular, is a strong opportunity for CNT pellicles as these structures demand high-NA, high wattage, and more number of layers in the manufacturing.

A small market today, but with 25% CAGR along the next 10 years, a very, very strong market in that segment in the future, underlining our growth ambitions not only until 2030, but even until 2035. A similar picture for the autonomous driving market: The ADAS market is already big today, but dominated by ADAS Level 1 and 2.

Just starting is ADAS Level 3 and 4. While our heater solutions might be an add-up in ADAS Level 1 and 2, they become a crucial aspect to increase the safety of ADAS Level 3 and beyond.

Again, we talk about a segment growing with almost 20% CAGR in the next 10 years, again, underlining the just-mentioned long-term growth ambition. How does this strategy translate into shareholder value?

We just drafted here the most important milestones. We already achieved in the past important milestones in the RMD and semiconductor segment, and we just achieved another very important milestone yesterday with our third reactor order to be achieved.

Of course, the next important step in the semiconductor industry will be the qualification of the pellicles at the device side. That is That will be the moment the dry deposition technology, the CNTs based on the Canatu technology, will enter the end market.

This we will have to achieve with our customers as a next big step. In the medical business, we will pretty soon start the FDA pathway.

Of course, in the RMD business, we will finish the development of the ADAS heaters, and we'll, in particular, roll them out in the most autonomous car driving systems. With that, I will hand over now to Mikko for deeper dive into the financials.

Thank you, Max. Let's start with the financial highlights of the first half.

Our revenue was €4.3 million, which is a low number that we acknowledge. At the same time, we want to emphasize that our long-term potential and our long-term pipeline, they are intact.

We did not lose any business to our competitors during the first half, and our competitive position remains as very strong. Secondly, our gross margin remains on a good level, and this we take as evidence of inherently good profitability of our business.

We just need to scale up the revenue. Thirdly, what we want to emphasize is our strong balance sheet.

It's debt-free, our cash position remains good, and these are very valuable assets in the growth phase and in the industries we operate. In connection with the strategy work, what Max just described, we also updated our financial targets.

We continue to aim at more than €100 million in revenue in in 2030. Given the markets where we're operating, we are confident that if we reach this, we should target also a high continued growth thereafter.

Therefore, we will We have a target of reaching minimum 20% CAGR from 2030 to to '35. Additionally, given the the the decisions what we made during the strategy process, i.e., that we will operate with the reactor model in EUV pellicle business, and that we will focus on scalable product businesses in elsewhere, we are confident that this growth We can make this growth happen in a very resource- and capital-efficient way.

That means that we are targeting to reach average revenue per employee of over €400,000 in 2030. We do see that this can be done with less than €6 million of average annual CAPEX from next year onwards.

This year, like we have previously also said, will be a peak year of CAPEX for Canatu. We currently see that the the the CAPEX this year will will be maximum €13 million, less than before anticipated.

This is also a reflection of the change in our strategy. The reason why we are peaking this year is is the investments in the second factory and in the EUV pellicle scanner, which are exceptional investments for a company like Canatu.

Then let's dive a bit deeper into the first half figures. Semiconductor revenue was €4.0 million, and that was a result of a lack of new reactor orders.

Like yesterday announced, now now we were able to close one new order, very big and important milestone. The second big factor there behind this semicon revenue was a one major inspection membrane customer who is working down their high inventory levels.

It's not that we Our position in inspection membranes, competitive position, remains unchanged, very strong. We expect that the demand for these membranes will pick up again once the inventory levels get back to normal level.

This is also a reflection of a fact that our product has been better than anticipated. It has a longer lifetime than what we originally expected, and the customer expected.

In robotics, medical, and diagnostics, our revenue in the first half was €3.6 million. That was mostly a result of completed engineering projects.

There, we had a potential to make even higher revenue. Due to the this decision to refocus our resources to the areas and efforts what which we believe will create most shareholder value in longer term, we did not continue some projects there.

That's that's kind of a short-term pain what we were trading for longer-term gains. Margins, gross margins, remained good, although they they decreased year-on-year basis, but that was a reflection of changes in the revenue mix.

In in terms of like profitability potential of these different businesses, there's no changes. Everything looks remains good.

That said, operating expenses did continue to grow in first half, and that was driven mostly by continued headcount growth. Now, like Max told, we are taking measures to to also on on that front.

At the same time, we also increased our investments in the R&D activity, especially on the medical side. These new premises, meaning new factory, also brought some new costs to our our P&L.

Investments, like said, were high in in in first half, and then will be high in this year. Mostly, they are now done.

First half investments, capital expenditure, amounted to €10.5 million. With these investments, we have significantly expanded our capacity, and also increased our quality control capabilities in in in a very meaningful way.

Balance sheet, cash position remains strong, as as said. Then about the outlook: This year, like we yesterday published a pre-information in connection with this reactor order, despite the reactor order, we do see that this year revenue will decline significantly compared to the previous year, i.e., 2025, €15.6 million back then.

Long-term potential remains intact in all business areas. This decline this year is is a is a factor or result of of things progressing.

Of course, not everything is on our hand. It depends, some things, on our customers and and further on their customers.

That's that's beyond our control. Then, obviously, we need to improve our own execution as well.

That's what Max already highlighted. Further, like said, we have made some conscious decisions that that we do not continue certain businesses and certain operations, and that will bring some short-term pain this year.

I think that's from the financials. Now I hand over back to Max to conclude.

Yes. To conclude: We presented today our Polaris program, and the Polaris program includes 12 major changes we implemented in the last 100 days within our company.

This will be a foundation for the future success I strongly believe in. The company will focus even more on profitable top-line growth, underlined by the newly introduced CMO department.

On the other side, we will improve our R&D execution efficiency with the CTO department as project management lead and the business unit as project owners. With these measures, I'm confident that Canatu will succeed in building a €100 million-plus revenue company by 2030, with a vision to reach levels up to €300 million by 2035, based on the just-mentioned 20%-plus CAGR from 2030 onwards.

Thank you a lot.

Now it's time for questions, from the audience.

Hi, it's Atte Riikola from Inderes. Maybe first about the discontinued businesses and operations: Could you open up a little bit what business have been now discontinued, and what was their revenue impact, for example, last year?

The businesses we discontinued, a part of the businesses were engagements where we sold a kind of engineering hours. A a project-based business where really permanently our engineers had to execute together with the with the partners paying for it, but of course, that had a lot of opportunity costs.

These engineers could not focus on accelerating on the product roadmap execution. We stopped that activity to be in time or even faster with finishing our product developments and being able to hand them over properly in our manufacturing, as we were not so optimistic about the scalability of that approach.

About the financial impact, I leave it to Mikko. Yeah.

Yes, like like like you see, and like like like said, the RMD business, that's where most of these activities reside. These stopped activities, so it grew still in in first half very well with these engineering projects.

Obviously, like the the revenue mix in in there will be like different going forward.

All right. Now we know the FST reactor order has come in, but how about this another reactor customer, and there's the SAT approvals are still ongoing.

Can you say anything about the situation, how it how it is developing at the moment? Um,

of course, it's not fully in our hands, and at the end, it's it's part of a bigger supply chain beyond Canatu to have that final approval. We also have to consider that due to the high loading situation in the semiconductor device part, the resources to engineer new technologies in are very limited at the moment because a bigger part of the industry is on execution executing its order book.

That's typically not always the best time to implement new technologies. Nevertheless, in the 100 days I've been here, I've seen reasonable progress in that, making me optimistic about that we will conclude that in a reasonable amount of time.

What kind of expectations do you have for the two FST reactors when those are going to start to generate meaningful recurring revenue for Canatu?

Yeah. When a customer orders a secondary order reactor, that's a strong sign.

That's really a commitment. That's That makes a big difference from my point of view if a customer is just with having one reactor.

Obviously, that is already a strong indicator for the progress our partner FST is doing in that segment. At the end, of course, again, it depends on their customer with respect to the reoccurring revenue.

From my point of view, that is then a matter of time. That they already expanding now in in their manufacturing capacity, at the end, is, of course, a very, very good indicator, and obviously, there is a strong confidence at FST on a pretty soon market introduction underlined by that order.

How do you see the use of CNT pellicles in low-NA productions? Now you are mentioning that 2 nm is is the most important one.

For me, there is um triangular. You have the wattage of the EUV light source, you have the numerical aperture, and you also have to think about the numbers of layers per wafer.

There are different ways to realize advanced structures. We have to take into account it is also technically possible, for example, with a significantly larger amount of layers per wafer to have even in the today's standard technologies with normal numerical apertures and lower wattage these advanced structures.

At the end, what the Canatu technology or what the pellicles, the CNT pellicles do, is improving the manufacturing yield, which, for example, would be also important when you have more layers under today's numerical apertures, because the yield costs become higher when the number of layers increase. What CNT compared to compounds is advanced is the the nature of being a pure carbon material.

At the end, the atomic structure of CNT is similar to diamond, and that's the most robust material on that planet. That is, of course, the promise of CNT to be an optically and from the robustness advanced solutions to the today's pellicle standards, metal silicides.

As it is with the change of standards in the semiconductor industry, when you look in the past, it's typically about a decade you talk, and it's not happening overnight. If it's happening and if it's proving, it goes pretty fast.

You You have You can There are many examples in the past, for example, like the switch from DUV to EUV, by the way. When you look how long ASML worked on EUV until it finally became a business, that were almost three decades if I'm not wrong.

Of course, that patience is always needed when you're in the semiconductor business. Of course, a second reactor order from a customer, this is a very, very big commitment, and the company seems to be very, very confident.

Your competitors have also announced some some pellicle production of their own. How do you see Canatu's competitive position has developed this year?

With the second reactor order from FST, good. That there are more companies working on CNT is, first of all, good.

That's in the Canatu interest that not one company from Finland, but a bigger amount of companies is working on the same material class, CNT. Compared to our competitors, I think, in particular, in tuning the properties, which finally result in the optics and reliability, our dry deposition technology is pretty advanced.

I think we have here a strong technological moat.

You now don't give any more like long-term EBIT margin target as previously. Can you say anything about your ambition level if you go to the long term, is is it similar kind of profitability that you were targeting before, or is it higher or lower?

Yeah. I I think what we want to say that that at this point of the of the growth growth like trajectory, we need to focus on the revenue growth.

That's the that's the key thing. The Our business remains very profitable as as evidenced by the gross margins.

Like, if we just are able to scale the top line, the the this will be a highly profitable company. There's no doubt about that.

Also like I think you can like use this new target of reaching €400,000 revenue per employee as a kind of a like also indication of our profitability, because like that's a quite quite like a direct proxy of our cost base, this number of employees.

All right. Thank you.

Hi, Valtteri Rossi from Danske Bank. Thanks for the presentations.

Few questions as well. First, you state quite clearly, I think, that you focus now on selling reactors only in the semi semi segment.

What you led led you to choosing this route compared to the previous kind of dual track?

I think for Canatu, it is favorable and also for its customers, if we choose a path and if we choose a business model increasing the likelihood making the dry deposition the standard CNT manufacturing technology. With that decision, we are more or less opening via our reactor technology and the IP behind a global access to this.

Yeah? In the alternative scenario, we would be more or less if we would do pellicles, we would be somehow a competitor of some companies which are now in this business model will become potential customers.

With that, I'm pretty sure we increase the likelihood to make our technology a standard in this. Our business model, a combination of reactor sales and then, of course, reoccurring revenues, I think will pay off if it is a standard in particular, and it is the basis for that decision.

Of course, it also requires less CAPEX. No doubt about that.

Okay. Thank you.

Kind of relating to that, do you know if your competitors, are they like all selling directly, basically, pellicles, or are some of them selling reactors?

I wouldn't know a reactor supplier producing membranes for pellicles. I think the companies I have met are integrated up to the pellicle level.

Okay. Thank you.

Then also a question on the second customer, and and the why they haven't accepted accepted the reactor yet. Basically, is there something wrong, or not something that they're not happy with, the customer?

Or are they just not going to accept it until they need it? What's your kind of read on the situation?

As mentioned, first of all, each customer has different resources investing investing into a qualification of a new technology. In particular, if a customer is busy in its operation as an order book is extremely large, that can easily prolong these kind of processes.

No doubt about our reactor technology is pretty new in the industry, and there is a lot to learn also via our customers, which then needs to be addressed and together with the customers to be achieved with respect to the parameter output. I'm very confident, as mentioned, that this will finally succeed.

It's only a matter of time.

Okay. Thank you.

One last question, at least for for now: Was there any recurring revenues in in H1, and what is your expectation on the recurring revenues going forward compared to the reactor price, and how much are you selling the reactors for now?

There was a many questions in in one, but like So, the recurring revenues, what I I think you are referring to the what we get from reactors, they are still in the future. In the big time, of course, we are like getting some recurring recurring revenues from when we are selling like services, and and and and some consumables to these reactors, but but like, of course, the big thing will be then when these are taking in into mass production, these pellicles.

Then what was the other?

How much are you selling the reactors for?

That that we still like do not disclose.

Good afternoon. It's Matti Riikonen, DNB Carnegie.

Couple of questions also from me. First, I would like to return to the question which has been discussed already, which is the site acceptance test for the second sold reactor.

You said that you have made yourself some progress towards getting it accepted. What exactly have you achieved, and what have you done?

These site acceptance tests are, of course, at customer side. Yourself means, of course, where where where the reactor is.

These are connected to a list of parameters which have to be achieved, where we made progress. We could make a mark on some parameters which were not solved before.

Is there anything on your side that still needs to be done? Have you completed your part of the work that you can do in this time frame?

Of course, these SAT criteria are the output of an equipment. What the equipment puts out depends a lot where it's where it's standing, for example, with clean room, under which conditions, and how it is operated.

At the end, all these criteria are a result of a combined work. I think it's pretty in these SAT criteria hard to say to isolate, this is a pure responsibility of Canatu or pure responsibility of its customer.

It's always a joint effort.

All right. If it's a joint effort, and you are basically ready to do your part, and have done so in the process, does it mean that the customer just don't feel the urgency to go through with the site acceptance test because there is no pressure for them to get the production running?

When we when we think about what the pellicles in general are for, they are at the end improving the yield of an already existing manufacturing. That means there is, for example, not a hard, time-wise milestone where, with a change to a new technology, you could not start to produce it without pellicles, for example, independent if it's metal silicides or CNT.

It's not that the the pellicle itself is the enabler to achieve, let's say, 2 nm. What it is doing, it's increasing the manufacturing output.

I can understand, also from my experience in semiconductor device companies, when you ramp up a new generation with the lowest possible complexity, for example, maybe leaving out pellicles in total in the beginning, and then working in a second step on improving the yield. Yes, the customers have the option to decide on their own when they use pellicles or when they switch from one to the other pellicle technology.

It will not change the device generation manufactured. That's good and bad for us.

There is no hard deadline on the one side and also no pressure on the other side. That's true.

Generally, I think that is positive, that there is no time-wise killer criterion when when to to reach it. Of course, every day you are working with a technology achieving a lower yield, you have a competitive disadvantage, because in the device industry at the moment, everything is about manufacturing output.

That is what a yield improvement does. I would believe those who manage to use CNT pellicles technology and finally achieve a better yield have a significant competitive advantage, more profit and more revenue.

That is what the GPU, memory, in particular memory, GPU, and CPU industry is at the moment all about. There is a very, very good business case for better yields.

In the risk statements related to the delivery of the second reactor and reactors altogether, you say that there will be a penalty if you don't meet your part of the agreement and and the the reactor doesn't perform according to the standards that you have specified in the sales agreement. Based on your discussion now, it seems that that is not the case.

The only reason that is holding up the site acceptance test that that the customer doesn't have the resources enough to make it actually productive, get it into the production, which signals that there is not such a great hurry to increase production of those those pellicles that would be used in the production. Or is there any other excuse for this to take longer than it's been almost two years now since you delivered the reactor?

Is it just not interesting for the customer to get it up and running because there is no need for the pellicles?

Two years are, of course, in the semiconductor industry, depending what you talk about, even a normal time frame. When you see So, I worked, for example, many years in the silicon carbide industry and a device development in that, which was also fundamentally change, was typically for a platform development never lower than three years.

The hurry is, what the pressure comes from the misbalance between demand and supply. There's far more demand in the device industry than supply, and everybody has pressure to increase output.

There are there are different ways to address that. For sure, the fastest way to increase supply is improving the yield.

No doubt about, a semiconductor manufacturing process is extremely sensitive in a long manufacturing chain, and every change, even if it looks tiny in this, is a risk. What I can understand is that there are a lot of measures undertaken and tests undertaken before implementing a new technology, including the pellicles.

Because worst thing what could happen is if you have even one week an issue with your lithography tool. I in particular with the order book pressure, I can understand the customers being careful.

Nevertheless, the yeah, just the third reactor order is is a statement from the industry. When we look at the physics, when we compare to the today's standard material, the compounds, it is it is a big promise on improving the yields, in particular, when we reflect that also to the device roadmaps.

We will in future have far more wafer starts in the area of 2 nm and below, and that will result in higher wattage, higher numerical aperture, and also more layers starts. In all aspects, we talk about yield being more critical, the robustness of pellicles being an even more important factor, and also, of course, the manufacturing output in total.

These are promising trends.

All right. One of the questions before related to the consumable revenue: I think you said that you didn't record any consumable reactor revenue in in the first half.

Was that correct?

Not in the big time.

Yeah. Basically, even if FST has already one reactor ready to produce, they didn't, and therefore you you felt or there was no need to deliver more consumables to them.

Doesn't that suggest as well that there is no such a great hurry to get the production running even from the first reactor? Of course, you are already explained that in this in the case of the second reactor, that doesn't seem to be a great hurry to even get the site acceptance test.

Or how otherwise would you interpret the situation that that the the production is not starting in any significant volumes even from the first customer, with whom basically everything has been cleared for production?

Of course, what the customers of FST do is only a speculation we can do. Why, for example, pellicle material, why when customers are careful in changing a pellicle material, is due to the sensitivity of the manufacturing device manufacturing supply chain.

I think the fact that we receive from FST yesterday the second reactor order underlines their confidence, and obviously, also is related to a forecast from FST requiring a capacity expansion. Otherwise, that reordered reactor order wouldn't have come.

In particular, for the case of FST, I think just yesterday's milestone shows that there is, obviously, from from our customer point of view, more demand inside that they needed to place a second and a further order, and that it is a matter of time and not so much a question, but more a matter of time, when then the pellicles will be at the device manufacturers, and then also reoccurring revenues for Canatu will be monetized.

All right. In in your report, you mentioned that you made some progress in EUV inspection products.

What kind of What kind of progress did you actually make?

Our today's products are inspection membranes. We identified in that inspection area opportunities to increase our share of [BAM?]

, BOM, of that total inspection system without being able to disclose there too much details. There are more use cases than only this membrane use case in that area where we can expand the business.

All right. If you say that your testing membranes lasted better or longer in customers' use, does that mean that you are also getting a price increase next time you're selling to them, because your product actually has proven that it works longer?

We can, of course, not disclose here price negotiation, but it has definitely proven that the value of what we delivered was high higher than anticipated.

All right. Now, when you talk about your CAPEX, you now you limit it to €6 million on an annual basis, except for this year.

Does that mean that you are not planning to build a new factory? You think that the two factories, the second one ready soon this year, would be enough for your production, also going forward?

It implies that it is what we have in manufacturing infrastructure today is sufficient to achieve our 2030 target. Of course, we still have a CAPEX plan, it's not not zero.

Of course, it's also a consequence out of saying for the pellicle market, we are an equipment business. This is, of course, having a far lower CAPEX than when you would say you do the pellicles by your own.

That is one result of that. Yes, you also Also, the allocation of doing only products with a higher euro per square centimeter value has, of course, an impact on the revenue achievable within a manufacturing line.

When I say I will only develop and manufacture in our today's factories products with a high or higher euro per square centimeter value, automatically, the achievable revenue with an installed capacity rises. That is also a part point of that and a result of having not a demand for extremely high CAPEX in the in the next four years, let's say.

All right, but what does that mean in practice? What part of your production is now having a lower price per square centimeter, so that you would kind of have the opportunity to reduce some production and increase the higher-value per square centimeter production?

I don't quite understand that what is the low-value-adding part that you want to get rid of.

We had products on the roadmap which we were in development which would eat up a lot of capacity without achieving a lot of revenue. Without going into detailed customer projects, but, of course, it makes a big difference, for example, if you have some square centimeters of a hormone detection sensor, or if you deposit carbon nanotube on several square meters in markets which are also partly commoditizing.

These depositing CNTs on extremely large areas without having the visibility that these markets would value that with reasonably high prices, this we stopped. That, of course, was in a former manufacturing plan still part of, which would have resulted in more CAPEX.

All right. Then finally, you have now downgraded your long-term targets for the second time within a year.

What makes you think that your current estimates for the future would be any more realistic than the two previous ones have been? Why should we kind of now believe that either the numbers that you are showing today, net sales target €100 million by 2030, would be realistic and achievable, because already within a year, you have changed those long-term targets twice?

Yeah. I I I think I would regarding the revenue target of reaching €100 million or more, it's it's very close to what we had in the spring, or what we said in the spring.

Why why we made this slight change, it used to be like €100 to €150 million, that reflects these changes, what we made in the strategy, that we focus on on on in this like a reactor-based model and and these scalable product businesses. Like what we've been stating now several times, and and again this time, that the long-term potential is is unchanged.

We don't see that changes there, and and like So so, like we don't see a big change in the in the revenue target.

What increased yesterday the confidence on the plan is that the reactor order we received yesterday came even time-wise ahead of the plan.

Finally, if you are so confident on the €100 million target in 2030, which is a long time forward, why don't you give kind of annual revenue targets or a range, just to guide investors and analysts that the estimates would be even roughly correct? Why can Why can you be so certain of the long term if you are not certain enough to give information to capital markets on the short term?

I think it's we've been discussing this today as well, that like there are things which which are not in our control. They depend on our customers, and and how they go forward.

Timing remains in short-term risk. In long term, we think that that the the the kind of risk, in a way, is is on a substantially lower lower level.

Like Max said, it's it's not it's less of a question of if, but when this happens. That that's why we are confident.

We don't want to like put fingers in in each year that this is how it goes, because that that's that's is not fully in our hand. Then also like we need to like preserve our negotiation position towards our customers, that we don't set too explicit targets which can then be like counterproductive.

If you give a range for net sales for short term, and you make it wide enough, then it includes all the possibilities that you must have in numbers in your business plan. Why is it so difficult to guide the markets?

Because I think the benefit of that would be that you wouldn't need to come with a massive profit warning in the middle of the year just to reset all estimates that that have been produced that far. I think the policy that you're running now is clearly more harmful to you as any kind of guidance-giving exercise would be if the guidance range is wide enough to basically meet all roughly potential outcomes.

Let's we have not given a profit warning. We gave yesterday a pre-information about the profit and the outlook for this year, and and it's kind of like I said that it will decline.

It was not a profit warning. Let's I want to clear that.

You might say a lot of technical things, but it was actually a profit warning in the true meaning of the case, so that you let the markets know that current estimates are way high higher than what you foresee for this year. Regardless of what you call it, it was a really bad profit warning.

Feedback taken.

Valtteri Rossi from Danske Bank. One additional question about modeling the revenues until 2030: Does it Do Would you say it still makes sense to try to model it, based on number of reactors sold, or should we focus more put put more weight on recurring elements, and roughly, what would you say is the split between these reactors' hardware sales and recurring revenues in 2030?

The majority of the planned revenues will be reoccurring. Either they are products, or royalties and fees, it will be not, let's say, not reactor.

What also is important until in this plan until 2030, we have cumulative sold then 10 react- minimum 10 reactors, meaning seven more to go. On the other side, this is an exponential curve, and I would be very happy if every time I have I'm 100 days in a company, we achieve such a milestone.

This is, of course, very important, but the model includes to have minimum 10 reactors sold until 2030, and to have a majority of non-reactor sales revenue. What would that mean?

We have then, of course, when you have are less dependent on reactor sales, it's less volatility, yeah, that is automatically leading to a less volatile revenue trajectory. With that also, an easier visibility than you have today.

This is pretty clear. It's easier to forecast a product business than an equipment business.

Just to make sure I heard correctly, 2030, more than 50% of sales would be recurring already at that point?

Would be not reactor business, a product or, let's say, license or royalties or fees revenue, yes.

By the way, is this semiconductors or or all segments?

Overall, Canatu in total.

10 reactors within, like, including all of these three? Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Atte Riikola from Inderes. One last question: We had now talked lots about your two existing reactor clients, but how is the sales pipeline for new new customers developing?

Naja, gut. The perspective has opened with our decision to say, okay, we are equipment company.

I think that makes Canatu, of course, now very interesting in the EUV pellicle market for those who might have seen us before today as potential competitors. Let's say the opportunity widens with that.

That's the starting point. Then there's a way to go to have a design-in, design-win, and orders, sure.

Overall, on the potential customer base, in particular, for the semiconductor business, that is that is an improvement. For the RMD business, as the renaming implies, we are not seeing this anymore on the long term as a purely automotive business.

Automotive is for sure the a big market and a market where we have a lot of experience and have already products successfully sold. In particular, when we talk about a reop- robotics market, that is a very, very promising market for Canatu.

Why? Because when you see our solutions are part of the the solutions we have, which are part of the sensing or acting, when you compare to other Tier 2 and Tier 1 companies, they do also now a new go-to-market with former automotive products.

We are following that logic as well. Also in Europe, the robotics market is other than the automotive market, an organically strongly growing market.

What the automotive market is, when you see the number of cars, it's always between 80 and 100 million. It's in itself not really strongly growing, which leads to the fact that you have then this transformational growth like in EV, and then like in EV at the moment, you you suddenly have a commoditized situation with a stronger price competition.

By widening our perspective to robotics and defense, we are expecting to be positioned in markets which are not that price-sensitive, also not on the long run, as they are organically far stronger and far longer growing. In particular, the robotics market, when you see the forecast for humanoid robots, relatively optimistic forecasts are saying in 10 years from now, it maybe a factor of 10 bigger than the number of cars.

When you then see the bill of materials of these robots for sensors, it's almost equal to the car. That is an super interesting market for Canatu.

Thank you.

Thank you. I think we are we are done with time, like, thank you for the very good questions.

I was checking all the questions what we got on online, and and and most of them at least were covered already here in the by the audience, thank you.

Thank you a lot also from my side. Let's hope for further success in the future.

Thank you for your trust.