Martin did a very good job initially. We are focused on coronary artery disease. It's the largest cause of death globally. It kills more people than all cancers combined. We're the only global solution that is able to assess a coronary CT angiogram in real time and at the point of care to provide a full analysis of the patient risk, which includes plaque analysis and blood flow analysis, all within a real-time manner. That really helps us to not only improve patient care, but also streamline workflows in already very busy hospital systems. Commercially, we are targeting a $4.4 billion-plus cardiac CT market in the U.S. Our U.S. go-to-market strategy is very much focused around foundation customers, which are now going live and starting to generate revenue. We have a growing pipeline through our SAPPHIRE study, which I'll talk about a little bit later. Our strong balance sheet, which is backed by some very strong institutional investors, is really there to help us execute on our U.S. plans. We are very much well positioned now for meaningful scaling into the US, as well as starting to build market leadership for our company. Maybe just to get into the beginning, the way coronary artery disease is currently assessed really looks at the narrowing of the coronary vessels. That is an outdated way of arteries that inflames and that effectively ruptures and causes the narrowing. In over 50% of men and 64% of women, the first indication of any heart disease is they die, which means that something else is causing the heart attack because it is a silent killer, which is the soft plaque. That really leads down to downstream unnecessary procedures, a backlog and delay in patients being assessed, which causes a costly and risky process for many of the patients, as well as hospital systems. The reason is that the solutions that are out there do not really provide a real-time and point-of-care understanding of that patient risk, which is really where Artrya was developed and Celix was developed to solve that problem. What is Celix? As I mentioned, it is a point-of-care real-time platform that has been built in the cloud. It leverages AI to take in a CT coronary angiogram, which is the first-line test for anybody with chest pain, which is defined by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association. It processes that scan and then performs a detailed plaque analysis, including that inflammatory plaque that I mentioned earlier, as well as a non-invasive blood flow analysis, which really forms the gatekeeper for invasive procedures. It allows the clinician to make a more informed decision on the type of treatment, the pathway that the patient should be going for. It's in a unified platform, which allows the doctor to have one enterprise-wide solution and use that single platform to report on, instead of having multiple solutions that build in physician fatigue. Because we are cloud-based, our ability to process a scan is very low. That is in the single digits to process that from a cost perspective. That allows us to make the hospital systems profitable in how they assess patients, but also through making them a lot more efficient, allowing them to increase the throughput of patients through the system, but also sending patients on for the right procedures where they generate a lot of their value. In a normal workflow setting, what normally would happen, as I mentioned, a CCTA is now the first-line test for anybody with chest pain, either with stable chest pain or acute chest pain or a history of heart disease or genetics. The patient will then be sent for a CT coronary angiogram. The scan will be taken. As that scan is taken, it will be sent onto a picture archiving and communication system like a PACS system or a Prometheus type of platform, where there is visualization software that is overlaid on top of that. The scan then gets prepared by a radiographer for the physician and then gets sent on to the doctor's worklist. When they have their reporting schedule, the doctor will report. This top line here basically can take anywhere between a number of hours or days to perform. They cannot perform a plaque analysis on here just because of the complexity, and they cannot perform a blood flow analysis because of the complexity. Some of our competitors, Cleerly, who performs plaque analysis, Heartflow, who performs blood flow analysis, and Elucid, similar to Cleerly, plaque analysis, were born to support that. The doctor then requests that analysis. It gets sent on to one of those competitors' data centers, where they have humans preparing the imagery. They end up drawing circles. They prepare the report. That gets quality controlled. About 24 hours, and sometimes even longer, the report gets sent back to the doctor who requested it. That is a fixed report. They cannot edit the report. If they disagree with the findings, they've got to discuss that with one of the competitors. That may take days or weeks before that is resolved. Because they have this human element in there, the charge to the system for that specific procedure is more than reimbursement. Effectively, that system is losing money for that patient, which really forces them to consider whether the doctor is ordering that scan for that specific patient or not. We've seen many hospital systems say that this approach, this current approach, is delaying their workflow and is also delaying treatment. What we've done is combined both of these into one single platform, which allows the doctor to process the scan. Once the scan's taken, within eight to 10 minutes, they get a full CCTA report, a full plaque analysis, and blood flow analysis, which is editable. A lot of our value proposition lies not only in the quick turnaround time, but also the resimulation, which is in near real time and allows the doctor to make those changes and then approve it and send the patient on for their right procedure. As I mentioned, we do have a very low-cost process, which allows the system to become profitable for that specific patient. Go to the next screen. Sorry, Justin, this is not allowing me to move to the next screen. There we go. Go back one. Okay, so what does that really look like for us? It's a large market, as I mentioned earlier. It's a $4.4 billion-plus market opportunity for us. There are a number of tailwinds supporting that growth. One, the guidelines that I mentioned a little earlier, the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology in the U.S. defined this as the first pathway for chest pain. There are attractive reimbursements now available, both with category one codes supporting plaque assessment of $950, as well as $1,017 for the blood flow analysis. There is a big push towards CT first because the CT coronary angiogram scan is able to process patients a lot faster compared to traditional pathways like stress testing or nuclear testing, which takes sometimes up to 45 minutes to process a patient, which means the throughput is a lot slower in that pathway. The challenge with that pathway, though, is that many of the hospital systems and doctors are not able to handle that capacity because of that growth, which is really where the solution like ours is able to support that growth through CCTA. Next page, please. There we go. What does that look like for us commercially? Celix, the base platform, is already FDA cleared. That is meant to be the enterprise-wide solution for everybody or any doctor using our software to report CCTA. If you think of a system that has 10,000 patients coming through, all 10,000 patients will go through the base platform. We charge roughly about $50 for every patient. The second module, which overlays onto our platform, is the plaque module. Roughly about 70% of patients will go for a plaque analysis. About 7,000 of that 10,000 will be analyzed with our plaque module. There's $950 in reimbursement, and we charge about $750, which means that the system is profitable just on that procedure on its own. For the blood flow analysis, which is now currently in the FDA process, around 35% of patients will go through that procedure. So 3,500 patients will be going through that. Same thing, we discount off the reimbursement. We charge about $800. Again, similarly, they make about $200, and they become profitable. The blended rate across all three modules is about $850. At 10,000 patients, that's about $8.5 million in revenue opportunity for us as a company. Just quickly move through. Next page, please. Our approach into the U.S. is very structured. We've partnered with Tanner Health, Northeast Georgia, and Cohn early on to build our learnings and awareness of the U.S. system. That has really set the platform for us as a company to build our blueprint as we scale into the U.S. Tanner Health is the first commercial agreement we signed earlier this year. The five-year commercial agreement of $600,000 is only for the base platform, but we have priced for plaque and flow. When flow gets cleared, we'll start charging for that, and we should start charging for plaque in the near term. Cohn and Northeast Georgia, we're close to finalizing our commercial agreements with them and expect to have those done by the end of this year. The combination of these three performs about 15,000 scans a year, which, going back to that blended rate, is about $12.5 million in revenue opportunity for us once all three modules are in full flight. That gets us close to break even by the end of FY2027. Next page, please. Further on to our structured approach, we do not need a large sales team in the U.S. because we have built a study called SAPPHIRE. SAPPHIRE is really there for two parts. One, from a clinical perspective, it allows us to test some of the novel features that we have and clinically show that we can change standard of care in the future. There is a large assessment of coronary artery disease in women as part of that. The second part of it, it's really a business development process for us as well, where we're bringing in high-volume, high-quality centers like Mass General, who we have announced recently, Ascension, Piedmont Healthcare, and Huntsville Heart Center, and a few others that will all form part of the study. While the study is running its course, we will be looking to move them to commercial agreements. It's a three-phase retrospective study. As part of the study, we have to connect to their PACS system so that when the study kicks off, we will be able to provide them the software in normal clinical settings so they can test it and pilot it as patients come through so we can show them the value. I do want to be clear. We don't need the study to end for this to happen and to be commercial with them. We are using this as a mechanism to show our commercial pathway and develop a commercial pathway. The combination of these players here performs about 400,000 scans a year. At the blended rate of $850, that's about $340 million in revenue opportunity for us. It is a long opportunity and pathway for us just focusing on these centers. Next page. To wrap up, we are now moving from an R&D company to commercialization, and we're starting to build infrastructure in the US with customer support, customer success, and integration specialists. There will be a support pod in the Atlanta area to support the Northeast Georgia, Cohn, Tanners, and the Piedmonts, etc., going forward. We're focusing on our Celix Coronary Flow module, which will go through the FDA process and expect to be cleared by the end of the first quarter next year. We are really focusing on our structured go-to-market approach with the three foundation customers and then bringing on the SAPPHIRE p artners in a staged manner as we go forward into the U.S. Martin, thank you. I will stop there with any questions. Thanks, John. That was a terrific overview. I'll start with your first three customers, Tanner, Cohn, and Northeast Georgia. You talked about 15,000 scans and $12.5 million in revenue, FY2027 break-even. Does that assume that 100% of their current scan volume shifts over to you? Yeah, so it is an enterprise-wide software. All scans, all CCTA scans will come to us and through our platform. We replace the existing approach to assessing scans, and they'll use Celix as that mechanism going forward. That's already a commitment from them. Yes. Yeah. Right. Okay. Extending the first question to the broader market, what level of penetration is realistic? Having the best product is not always the key to success. How do you propose to convince hospitals, even beyond the SAPPHIRE group, to switch products? Yeah, look, as I mentioned earlier, some of the biggest challenges that the hospital systems in the US have at the moment is they've got significant backlogs. Some of them are up to eight weeks because of the inefficiencies that they have. The discussions we've had and the feedback we've had is that they've been waiting for a product like ours because it can streamline their patients coming through the system, make them a lot more efficient, reduce their costs, but also allow them to send patients on for more elective procedures, which allows them to make more money off high-value procedures. We don't see a need to convince the system that they need to shift over because the financial and the clinical value does that. That's why we've really partnered with the SAPPHIRE partners, starting with the small ones like Huntsville Heart Center that do roughly about 10,000, Piedmont that do about 20,000, and starting to bring those on in a structured manner because as we get those on board, our revenue grows and the volume grows. We've had a number of inbounds coming towards us, but we've been really focused on the SAPPHIRE p artners and how we tackle the market there. Can you envisage a competitive response? Because people just don't lay down and let someone move in. Yeah. Yeah, Yeah, I mean, look, I was just saying to Bernie earlier, I mean, I'm in the U.S. I'm in New York now. I mean, we're getting a lot more interest from some of our competitors like Heartflow and following us. For them to really come down our pathway, we've got 27 filed patents. There's a whole patent portfolio that would get passed. For them to build a point-of-care real-time process or architecture, they've got to re-architect their whole software, which is, let's say, a two-year process. They've got to go through an FDA study and an FDA approval, which is another, let's say, year, year and a half. We've probably got about a three-year runway. We can't lay down and think they're not going to do it, which is why we've got a very strong product roadmap, which keeps on bringing value to our customers and also helps us grow our market size as we go forward. Can you just sort of tease out a bit of that product roadmap for us beyond the three modules? Sure. Yeah. And Bernie, you were going to say something before I jump onto that. Yeah, Martin, I was just going to say, just in relation, I think you were asking about the scale-up. I think people have just got to realize, the message we're trying to give the market is that we're going from these foundation customers of 15,000 scans. As John mentioned, Piedmont does about 20,000, Huntsville about 10,000. You will see these smaller ones come on. If you're just adding those two, that's about $ 60 million worth of revenue from an Aussie dollar perspective, right? If you take the 400,000 scans, that's $340 million, over $500 million in revenue. When you say you're scaling outside the SAPPHIRE p artners, I mean, it'll take us years to satisfy the SAPPHIRE partners alone. These guys, we've known Huntsville for a number of years. We've got a good relationship with Piedmont. We're confident in getting those as probably our first proof of concept in terms of what we're saying to the market is we're going to convert these SAPPHIRE p artners into commercial customers. You'll see that demonstrated through getting Huntsville over, getting Piedmont over. That legitimizes our go-to-market strategy for the market to have confidence in what we're saying is true. There's years of build-out there for us just on those SAPPHIRE p artners. We'll have all of those guys announced by the end of the year. A number of key opinion leaders from those organizations are coming onto the clinical advisory board. We're all connected. As John said, as part of the study, we've got to be integrated through their PACS system anyway. That is one of the key steps of getting onto it as a commercial customer. We've already done the integration in terms of the software through the PACS system. I just wanted to clarify that. Hopefully, that helps. Yeah. No, that's interesting you say that. You're talking about years for build-out. Can you just sort of tease out a bit more what that deployment and integration looks like? Yeah, I'll give it a crack, Bernie. You have a crack at that, John. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, as Bernie said, if you look at the foundation customers with that support pod of customer success integration specialists and the clinical field specialists who we've brought on, a few people now, they're based in that area of Georgia. Being able to support Tanner, Northeast Georgia, and Cohn, they're all in that geographic location. Piedmont's in the same geographic location. Huntsville is the same geographic location. It allows us to make sure that we're structured in who we bring on and when we bring them on. Mass General and Ascension, they're sort of more in that northeast area. Once those come on board, that allows us then to figure out, do we take the existing pod or do we grow that pod and shift them onto that northeast area over there? It is very much a structured approach. From a spend perspective, that will be structured as well. It'll be build a team over now, shift the cost from the flow clearance with FDA into that commercial spend. Then as we bring on the other partners, we can start bringing on the right people there as well. Right. And Martin, can I just say one thing also about the competitive landscape? You were saying, what's going to be the competitor response? Yes. The fact is, Heartflow, they've got less than 2% of the market. They're focused on the flow product. They've got a white-labeled product, which is not theirs. We're essentially talking about a greenfield market here, which is an unbelievable opportunity. You're not having to displace an incumbent from the market. What you are replacing is an incumbent, complicated system that the people use right now that they're looking for a streamlined solution. We've had feedback from clinicians in the States to say, "Look, thank God someone's done this. We've been waiting for this for years, right, to simplify our lives. As John said, there's lots of backlog in the US. There's a shortage of cardiologists. There's a shortage of radiologists. That is putting pressure on the systems to become a lot more efficient and focus on higher-value procedures rather than sort of doing it the current way that they're doing it. Yeah. That's great feedback to have from clinicians. Is integration and deployment the biggest challenge you've got over the next couple of years? Yeah. You know, I think integration itself isn't the challenge. It's making sure that we're engaging with IT teams effectively in the hospital systems. The way they work is you've got to basically set a priority; they set the priority of who gets done when. It's really where our focus has been with key opinion leaders to get introduced into the senior executive level where they understand the financial benefit. They understand the clinical benefit. We use them to drive the IT team to prioritize integration. Once that priority has been done, the actual integration work is fairly straightforward from our perspective. Yeah. There's no hardware or software going into the practice, Martin. Yeah. Right. Okay. The hospitals will get about $200 a scan in the split of the reimbursement price. Can you just sort of quickly outline their economics? Yeah. I mean, if you think of 70% of patients are going for a plaque analysis, 7,000 of their 10,000, and 200, they're able to take back $200. I mean, $1.4 million that's available for them from there. They are able to make money pretty quickly off a system like ours, whereas currently they're losing about $200 per patient. There's about a $400 gap between us and our competitors, which is significant for a hospital system because, as I said, it's forcing poor practice where they've got to change their workflow to accommodate the competitors. They're being charged more than the reimbursement, so they're losing money, and they're not able to get patients through fast enough. It really compounds the financial delay or lag for them versus where we are, where for every patient coming through, they're making effectively $200. It's a $400 turnaround from what you're saying. Yeah. It's not just that, mate. It's also about taking costs out, right, from the current system, taking costs out, and also getting more patients through. There are some other benefits as well apart from just looking at those raw numbers that we talked. Yeah. It's a double whammy, I think. Yeah. One thing, Martin, just before I let you go, you let us go, is that about one in every five or one in every six patients will go for an elective procedure, which is a stent or bypass graft. That's about a $30,000-$50,000 cost for the hospital system, which is a major revenue opportunity for them. Every two or three patients we can allow them to see more means that they can get one additional patient through every two or three days more than what they normally would. It is not only, as Bernie said, the opportunity here around opportunity for revenue, but also how many more patients we can get to these elective procedures where they make money as well. Yeah. It is a cascading ripple effect. Okay. That is excellent. We are out of time. We will call it a wrap.