Thank you, and thank you, everyone, for joining us for PureTech's 2026 Half Year Results webcast 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 -- 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 Phase III and Gallop received Fast Track designation, validating the exciting potential of this treatment for rare blood cancer.

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 nondilutive 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 3 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 contain, equity interest in our founded entities, royalty and milestone payments and our innovation engine, which is designed to generate future opportunities.

Celea is our most recent spinout. It is a Phase III 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 health care investors and immediately initiated the global Phase III SURPASS-IPF trial. The financing provided external validation of the program and delivered on our commitment to establish an independently financed path for continued development.

Today, PureTech holds a 35.4% equity interest and retains meaningful long-term economics through royalties, milestones and sublicense income rights. Gallop Oncology is a Phase II-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 I 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 II STRIDE-MDS trial.

Seaport Therapeutics is a Phase II 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 $250 million in gross proceeds.

This 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 update at our full and half year results on PureTech's economic outlook in Cobenfy sales based on evolving market consensus. 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 30, 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'll 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 development 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 II-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 antitumor 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. Frontline 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 setting 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 Ib results established a compelling clinical foundation for LYT-200 in relapsed or refractory high-risk MDS.

We completed a successful end of Phase I meeting with the FDA, which highlights the compelling clinical efficacy and consistent safety profile of LYT-200 in high-risk MDS patients who have relapsed or become refractory to prior treatment with an HMA. The FDA meeting provided clarity on the Phase II 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 II 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 Ib study and the inclusion of 2 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 will 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 taken the role of Gallop's acting CEO as I will be dedicating significant time and focus to this advancement. At the same time, I will 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 design 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 3 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 produce Karuna Therapeutics and Cobenfy, Seaport Therapeutics and Celea Therapeutics. Each began with a significant patient need and clinically validated pharmacology whose potential has 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 in 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 opportunity. 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 2 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 balancing $17.5 million of the overall $30 million we contributed to 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's prudent to have this provision to allow strategic optionality to preserve and support our interest in this important company whilst preserving 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 6 months of 2026 as compared to $49.8 million in the same period in 2025.

The increase between the 2 periods reflects higher R&D spend in the first half of 2026 associated with the preparation of Celea's Phase III trial 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 30, 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 investments 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 III with the backing of leading external investors. Seaport has completed a successful IPO on the NASDAQ.

Gallop has achieved important clinical and regulatory milestones and is positioned for external financing and Phase II development. And 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'll be pleased to take your questions.

I'll start on the planned design of STRIDE-MDS. I appreciate there's clearly a benefit to pursuing a mutation agnostic approach in this setting.

But has the FDA or are you planning to look at any specific biomarkers in this study? And then second question, just thinking about sort of the next wave of programs that you've guided to that you guided you will unveil next year.

I mean, how should we be thinking about that? I mean, obviously, you said clinically validated targets.

But in terms of disease areas and willingness to be [Audio Gap].

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.

And you're right that the approach here is a mutation-agnostic one. And that really [Audio Gap] KRAS pathway, BCOR, PNTT.

So what we do feel is, although as you sprout 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 in mutations was more representative of what we might see in a subsequent study.

And so 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.

And as of this time, we don't have plans for biomarker selection.

And 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, very high level [Audio Gap] are generally agnostic, but we do have a little bit of a bias, particularly in areas where we've had success before. But I'll just ask Greg to say a few words to that.

Yes. Thanks for the question, Sean.

So far this year, we have multiple opportunities we've identified that potentially fit our model and includes opportunities based on validated pharmacology as you had noted, and they can form the basis for developmental 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 is a therapeutic area for identifying additional indications. Specifically within CNS, we had success with Cobenfy and Seaport in looking at opportunities in neuropsychiatry and that's an area we're continuing to explore.

That said, as you also -- as we discussed, we do remain somewhat agnostic indication to an extent because we believe our model is broadly applicable and to bring impactful therapies to patients suffering for disorders outside of CNS and still have blockbuster potential. So we're happy to provide more details in 2027.

If I could just follow up on the STRIDE-MDS trial for a moment. I appreciate you're not guiding for a kind of cost window for that.

But can you just help me understand what the time line for that trial might look like? Is it similar in format, at least for the time for TIBSOVO?

And then secondly, Rob, if I can ask a broader question on -- perhaps on Celea first. I mean, 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.

So yes, 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 III.

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

To date, 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 due to year-end, but it is inevitable that they will need to raise additional money in order to complete the Phase III. 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, we will make announcement for that 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. So the Gallop trial will commence following receipt of external capital.

So just also to make that part of any timing clear. The initial projections, which are on the more conservative side, so I just want to get that caveated.

This would be probably somewhat under 3 years to complete the study as currently contemplated. And again, those are using a somewhat more conservative projections in terms of recruitment rates.

Now of course, what's going to happen is the actual time line, 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. But as we think about the go forward, we'd like to think about things on the more conservative side.

Perhaps 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? And 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?

Yes. So on that point, Miles, so yes, we're looking at a range of options for Gallop at this stage.

We believe both the indication, the data we have are exciting enough that it opens up different possibilities. So what we're looking at really and this maybe linking a little bit into your question on cash allocation, the way we do really think about it is it's all about the relative cost of capital.

So different funding structures, whether it's equity, whether it's a pharma partnership or 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. So 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.

And 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.

And part of the reason for that timing is to give us the opportunity to really take the whole of market approach to looking at the optimal funding sources that we can leverage there without being forced to rush into any particular avenue. So 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 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 rises in rates at the moment. Obviously, we are not generating great returns in terms of cash pile, that 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. So 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.

And so when we're thinking about how we allocate capital within that, we are looking at what kind of a return we can make and 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. And then the other component that we have talked about this morning, of course, is considering capital return to shareholders.

We are very conscious that there is substantial value within PureTech. And 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 that we -- and value that we generate within PureTech.

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

Sounds good, Rob. And yes, look forward to the first half next year hearing about some of those new programs.

I guess just a follow-up, another one on Gallop and STRIDE trial. I guess, just some -- 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've 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.

And 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. I'll ask Eric to speak to those points.

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

And the goals of the trial really are twofold. One is to confirm the efficacy that was observed in the Phase Ib 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 is driving towards a biologically meaningful and active dose.

And so we feel the FDA meeting was a very important step in terms of getting clarity, and we are happy with the trial design. And 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.

And so in terms of the implications of this trial, what differs from the Phase Ib versus the Phase II STRIDE-MDS study is not only the greater number of subjects, but also the fact that it's a double-blind randomized study. And so 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.

And so 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 the Phase Ib, 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. And just to be very explicit about the third part of your question, we are not guiding that this is a pivotal study.

And so -- but having said that, the data that would come out of this, we would view it as extremely meaningful.

That's helpful. And then if I can, on the overall sort of development strategy, just a bit more in terms of how many -- I mean you talked about the 3 concept stage programs.

It sounds like you're going to be announcing maybe one new specific development candidate in early next year, first half of next year. I mean, typically, how many of these things are sort of running in parallel at any one time, you have the bandwidth to run in parallel?

And then what's the sort of decision -- what's in the mix in terms of decision points about identifying that candidate?

Yes. Thanks, Christian.

So look, I'll hand over a minute to Greg to talk about some of the factors we take into account when we're considering how to advance those programs. But overall, as you say, we've guided that we want at least 3 concept stage programs per year.

We're currently running ahead of that, I'm pleased to say. And so 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. But 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 we'll see a lot of similarities with the success that we've had with Karuna, Cobenfy and more recently with Seaport and Celea.

But 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.

Yes. Thank you for the question.

We go through a very rigorous process. We kind of outlined it here and I would say broad strokes to give you a sense for how we approach these opportunities.

But 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, but 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 preclinical stage, we have a set of predefined criteria for our preclinical experiments that we'll look for. And so yes, we advance them through, I would say, key proof-of-concept experiments that are really designed to see if we've addressed the underlying limitation.

And once we do that, that can then form the basis for a development candidate that we would advance forward.

Sure, absolutely. So 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. And so 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. I think we've probably addressed that earlier by saying that, as Greg outlined it, 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. And really for us, that benefit of having that institutional knowledge of what it means to take a program all the way to 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 this program.

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 for the first time?

It's a good question, Julie. So 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. So 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. A big advantage as we move into the clinic, of course, is that the Phase I studies are significantly derisking even in healthy volunteers.

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