Webinar: Unlocking Sustainable Clinical Trials Growth, which is part of the Cogstate Investor Insight series. I'm pleased to introduce our panelists today, Brad O'Connor, CEO and Managing Director, Rachel Colite, our Executive VP of Clinical Trials, Paul Maruff, Chief Innovation Officer, and Luka Lucić, Senior Director, Clinical Science of Psychiatry. Before we begin, please note this presentation has been prepared by Cogstate for general information only. It is not intended to be complete, is not financial product advice, and includes forward-looking statements that are subject to assumptions, risks, and uncertainties. You should consider your own circumstances and seek independent professional advice if needed. To that extent permitted by law, Cogstate does not give any warranty as to the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information and disclaims liability for any loss arising from reliance on it. Also, a reminder that this webinar is being recorded and all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will be opening for questions at the end. If you would like to submit questions, you can use the chat function, which is down on your right-hand side of the screen. I'd like to now hand over to you, Brad. Thank you, Bec. Welcome everybody. This is one of a series of these webinars we've done. For those who have missed the others, you can see them on the investor section of the Cogstate website. We started with an interview with Anthony Costello, who's the CEO of Medidata. We've done a deep dive into Alzheimer's disease. Today we're going to deep dive into some other indications and really around the thematic of how is Cogstate winning more work, in what indications is it doing that. Just to set the scene before I hand over to Rachel, Paul, and Luka to take us into the details. We see here the clinical trial sales contracts executed through the first nine months of the 2026 financial year totaled AUD 67.1 million, making the FY 2026 financial year already our second best year on record, with obviously the June quarter still to come. The composition of these contracts demonstrate a really substantial progress in our diversification strategy. AUD 23.7 million of that AUD 67 million, or 35%, was derived from mood, sleep, and other neurological conditions. That's depicted by the navy blue sections in each of the bars here. That AUD 23.7 million of sales contracts over nine months in mood, sleep, and neurology is up from AUD 8.5 million in the full FY 2025 year and AUD 7.4 million in the FY 2024 year. Today we're going to explore two distinct disease areas where Cogstate's winning work under that broader heading, those are narcolepsy and psychiatry. It's also clear that we're on track to show an increase in the value of sales contract executed across all indications, including an increase in the value of sales contracts in Alzheimer's disease in this 2026 year. In that context, we'll also explore today how we've expanded our offering to capture a greater share of wallet from total pharma R&D spend. We've mentioned previously Cogstate sells directly to our biopharma customers. However, we also sell via channel partners. These partners are providing their data capture technologies into clinical trials, and they partner with Cogstate to take their data capture technologies into central nervous system disease trials. In October of 2024, Cogstate and Medidata announced our partnership, and there's no doubt that part of the increased sales volume that Cogstate is now seeing has come via that Cogstate Medidata partnership. However, it's truly also worth noting that Clinical Ink remains a really important partner for Cogstate and also represents a significant volume of our sales contracts. In recent months, we've been approached by additional potential channel partners, and we expect to explore those opportunities over the coming periods. Cogstate's experienced a substantial increase in sales opportunities, as demonstrated by this graph. The blue line at the top shows sales opportunities per half year, while the green line at the bottom shows new sales contracts executed per half year. As you can see, over the last 18 months, we've experienced a substantial increase in sales opportunity or basically shots on goal. That increase in opportunities is being driven by three factors. Firstly, an overall increase in R&D spend in central nervous system diseases. That is, we're sort of rising on a rising tide. Secondly, our channel partnership strategy is working, and our partners, such as Medidata, are bringing us an increased volume of sales opportunities. Thirdly, we're bidding for a wider variety of work due to that expansion of indications in which Cogstate is offering our services, such as this push into psychiatry and sleep. With that as context, I'm now going to hand over to Rachel, who's going to dig into the details a little bit more. Thank you, Brad. Before Luka and Paul go into a bit more about the narcolepsy and psychiatry market, I wanted to just give you a bit of a primer on w hat Cogstate does briefly, and why our customers choose to work with us, and a bit about why we think we're winning in these growth areas. At a really simple level, Cogstate helps pharmaceutical companies generate reliable data in clinical trials. Every trial produces error. People make mistakes, and that creates noise in the data. What we do is we reduce that error, increasing signal strength and ultimately improving the quality of trial outcomes. We do that through three things working together. First, we help sponsors ensure the right assessments are used in the trials, and this often includes our scientifically validated digital cognitive assessments that are sensitive to early change. Second, we train and actively monitor clinicians globally to help ensure that these assessments are delivered correctly, whether it's our assessments or all the other clinical outcomes that are used in the trial, and that's regardless of geography or language. Third, we provide optimized data capture with our eCOA partners that Brad just mentioned. This is paired really tightly with those quality programs I just mentioned, and increasingly with AI-powered analytics. We do this to detect issues early so that we can end up with clean and conclusive data. When you put that together, we're not just collecting data, we're delivering confidence in cognitive and clinical endpoints at scale. That's why our solutions are used in pivotal studies and trusted by leading pharma companies and regulators. Over the course of many years, that's enabled us to build deep and long-term relationships across the industry. One more thing I wanted to highlight on the what we do category. Brad mentioned the increased volume of trials that we're winning, and importantly, we're also expanding the services that we're delivering within many of those trials. Central rating is a really good example of that. Traditionally, assessments and trials are done at the trial site, which can mean hundreds of raters globally, each introducing variability, and requiring patients to come into the site. What we're seeing now is a shift towards centralized sort of telehealth style assessments, delivered by a much smaller group of expert raters. In these models, Cogstate isn't just training and monitoring. Our experts are actually the raters. That's a meaningful growth lever for us, and adds high value services, and it improves the consistency of the clinical endpoints, which is obviously critical for regulatory confidence and trial success. It also fits naturally with our existing solutions and workflows, which at the end of the day, is all focused on improving signal over noise. At the same time, it deepens our relationship with our customers, by increasing the touchpoints across the program, and it really sort of elevates our role in the trial, where in many of these instances, when we're doing central rating, we're doing so on the primary endpoint, in the trial. It just really focuses the importance of the Cogstate deliverable. Overall, central rating is driving both that higher value per study, but also those more durable partner relationships with our customers, which supports our long-term sustainable growth. Why are we winning in these new indications like narcolepsy and depression? First of all, our validated digital assessments. We've built a leadership position in the space over decades with respect to digital cognitive tests. Having the right digital endpoints on our platform can be a really key differentiator for us and an entry point for the other Cogstate services. That's why we've strategically expanded our test library to include measures, like the attention and vigilance test used in narcolepsy, which Paul will describe. We're currently developing proprietary batteries for a sponsor, specifically for use in psychiatry. This is a specialized and a core capability of Cogstate. Validated digital tests are only one step. You also need the delivery engine that keeps the other clinical assessments clean at scale. That's where the science plus scalability is a real key combination for us. In psychiatry, like depression, the big risk is noise on the primary endpoint, the symptom severity rating scales. Having the specialized clinical science expertise that's deeply informing that global operating model to train and monitor and rate at scale, that's a key reason why we win, and that's something that we'll hear a little bit more about from Luka. That combination of sort of science plus scalability is what sponsors feel when they work with us, and that's right from pre-sales through to delivery and the final data analysis. That brings us to the relationships. We've discussed before that we see strategic partnerships as a core capability of the company, often engaging early around trial design and endpoint selection, this creates a real stickiness before the protocol's even locked. We've significantly grown the number of large pharma customers with whom we've achieved this partnered relationship with, where we have a longer list of large pharma where we have preferred status or approved status. I think this has been a real key driver to the awards increase that we're seeing. Fourth is our eCOA partner ecosystem, as Brad referred to before. This is how we scale, reach, and embed into the sponsor workflows. The partnership story is not just commercial, it's technical and operational integrations with workflows and data flows that reduce risk for sponsors and reduce the burden for the sites and patients. When you put it together, the proprietary digital measures plus the science-led and scalable endpoint data quality engine, plus trusted relationships flexibly delivered through our eCOA partner ecosystem. That's why we can successfully expand into indications like narcolepsy and depression and win the work repeatedly. Now we'll hear from the experts, Dr. Luka Lucić, who leads our psychiatry work. He'll share about how we are approaching endpoint quality in areas like depression. Professor Paul Maruff, our founder and Chief Innovation Officer, he'll speak about our work in narcolepsy and this emerging class of orexin-based therapies that are starting to show quite substantial effects. You might be wondering how large an opportunity in narcolepsy and that broader sleep-wake disorder space could be. I thought it would be worth noting some recent industry movements here. For example, Eli Lilly, their $7.8 billion acquisition of Centessa to establish a foothold in this space. There's growing belief that these conditions could become the next obesity, are a major undertreated systems-level health condition, like obesity was pre-GLP-1s. Cogstate's been deeply involved in supporting many of those leading companies that are developing orexin programs. With that, I'll hand over to Professor Maruff to talk through how we're supporting these trials. Thank you, Rachel Colite. Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. A little background on narcolepsy. It's a remarkable circumstance that in the start of the 21st century, we have a disorder that's been appreciated since the Greeks, and the first treatment that has actually been able to show almost curative characteristics. Narcolepsy is a rare disorder. You can see on the slide there that it's about 12.6 per 100,000 people. The biology of the disease was only discovered at the start of this century, and remarkably was shown to be the loss of a specific class of neuron in an area of the brain called the hypothalamus, and the loss of neurons were exclusively orexin. Largely, the principle of this is that if we can replace orexin neurotransmission in people with narcolepsy, essentially the system starts working again, and the characteristic sleepiness and cataplexy, so that's sudden loss of muscle tone, is resolved. The work that we've been doing pretty much began in 2010, 2015, as companies started experimenting with drugs that acted on this system. As you can appreciate, as new drugs develop, there's issues of safety as people understand dose and understand target engagement. Having been there from the start, we've had a great opportunity to see how these drugs influence aspects that we understand, which is cognition. A crucial part, though, is that as we've understood orexin neurotransmission, we've learned that it actually is relevant to many, many other aspects of symptoms in people's disorders that include sleepiness in neurodegenerative disorders, cognitive impairment in psychiatric disorders, psychiatric symptoms of psychiatric disorders. Now part of the rationale for this rapid expansion and investment in this class of medicine is actually beyond the relatively rare disease of narcolepsy, and into extension of the use of that compound in other disorders that are related to sleep-wake. Of course, there's great regulatory support for this as well. Thanks. Brad, would you put the next slide up? Just to give you a sense of sort of how hot or how current this issue is, here is some data on the left, essentially generated from Cogstate cognitive digital tests that report the outcome of a phase II-B study. A phase II-B is a practice for a phase III study in people with narcolepsy, and the data there show the benefit of the orexin agonist called TAK-861 in a group of people with narcolepsy. The bars essentially talk about the magnitude of the benefit of the drug over placebo. The different colors are different doses. Whilst you see there's not much of a difference in dose response, the magnitude of that benefit for those tests is larger than any other benefit I've seen in any other area of medicine since I've been working in this space. The effects on cognition were enormous. That phase II-B data led Takeda to take cognition into their phase III program and nominate it as a secondary endpoint, two phase III pivotal trials. I can report, because it's public now, that those phase III trials were successful. That next little abstract that you can see will be reported at the sleep meeting in Baltimore next week. The information is public. Those phase III studies were positive. The magnitude of the effects identified in the two studies were exactly the same as what was observed in the phase II-B, this was not a fluke. This is a truly large effect. This is the first in class of this drug, the first time in a phase III study. As you can see, the little arrow moving to the right says that the information from these trials is now with the regulator, the FDA, and we expect advice on the outcome of that imminently, in the next month or two. Takeda, this is just my guess, they're planning for product launch second half of this year, the wind is at our back here. Of course, as you can appreciate with Lilly's large investment, every company that's in this space is entirely spooked. All of the engines are running much harder now to try and get this done. Next slide, please, Rachel. Just to recapitulate what we said at the start, that you might consider, why would narcolepsy be considered such a growth area? It's not. The narcolepsy issue is one small and early indication for this, and we've now got proof of concept that the drug works in that indication, and that we understand a little bit more about how modulation of orexin neurotransmission can manifest symptomatically. This has led, almost overnight, to plans and indeed, the beginning of clinical trials already. You could look at ClinicalTrials.gov and see where they're going. Currently kicked off in indications such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults, in major depressive disorder by itself, and major depressive disorder that's characterized by disruption of sleep-wake cycles. We know that disruption of sleep is an important generative aspect of neurodegeneration disorder. There's this idea that sleep disruption is part of the process by which amyloid accumulates in Alzheimer's disease and alpha-synuclein accumulates in Parkinson's disease and Lewy body dementia. Both of those latter two disorders have a symptomatic presentation of abiding fatigue and apathy. There's a number of other sleep-wake disorders like narcolepsy type 2 and hypersomnia and other sorts of exclusively sleep disorders. The early success, the fact that we were at the place where the success occurred, and with cognition, it was demonstrated on our proprietary tests, I believe puts us in a great place to actually expand our expertise and knowledge to assist companies who are working in these other indications with the same mechanism of action. Thanks, Rachel. I think that's me now, and I'm going to introduce you to Dr. Luka Lucić, who's going to explain to us about how psychiatry is growing in Cogstate. Thank you. Thank you very much, Paul. Thank you very much for your attention. As Paul mentioned, I'm going to talk a little bit about the reasons why we are seeing such growth in psychiatry, which was introduced by my colleagues earlier. Psychiatry trials are expanding at 8%-10% annually, reflecting renewed investment, and increasing global disease burden. Of course, we all know that psychiatric disorders are very prevalent, very well recognized, and increasingly more recognized, leading to increased need for treatment and attention. Cogstate, as you all know, is not new to psychiatry. We've been present in this space for quite a while now. However, we have not seen this magnitude and this scope of work for a while. There are a few reasons that are driving our success in the area of psychiatry. Some of the reasons are, to borrow the phrase that Paul used, there is some wind in our back. There are some changes that are happening in the industry and in the research in general. Then also we've changed some ways that we do things. I'm going to talk briefly about both of those. First of all, new drugs are being experimented on, new drugs are being brought into the pipelines and are likely going to be brought to the market. There are two classes of drugs. One is psychedelics, psilocybin, MDMA, ketamine, and even DMT. They are substances that have previously been seen as exotic substances that are trying, or are getting their space under the regulatory environment, and they represent a different neurobiological approach to targeting the high unmet needs in treatment-resistant depression, PTSD, addiction, and so forth. There is a new way of treating psychiatric disorders through psychedelics. The GLP-1 receptor agonists are also a class of drug that is being experimented on heavily. As you all know, and to bring it back to the point that Rachel made at the beginning regarding our central rating, both psychedelics and GLP have effects and then side effects that are sort of obvious to a naive eye. In order for the assessors or, as we call them, the raters of the change in psychiatric trials to be blinded to what substances are experimented on, central rating is used as a modality of rating. It's much easier to blind an individual to the type of side effects that the patient or the subject is having in the trial if that individual is not in the close proximity of the subject. As Rachel mentioned, it's sort of a telehealth type of a modality. That is bringing in a robust work for us, and we are, on the other hand, meeting that robust work with some changes that we're introducing. Maybe we can go to the next slide, and then I can talk about the changes. We have changed the way that we think about, that we talk about, and train both site raters that are primary recipients of our psychiatric training programs, and also our centralized raters. We are grounding our approach in a training philosophy that uses or thinks about the assessments in psychiatry as a unified system. Assessments in psychiatry are a tricky thing. If you are assessing some more objective area of medicine, for example, you want to know whether a fracture is healing quicker than naturally, you can administer a simple X-ray. In psychiatry, we don't have such objective measures. Most of our measures are very robust, very subjective. They've been made almost in the time of dinosaurs, 40 or 50 years ago. They're still being used. Great care is needed in terms of training and approaches to training and systematizing rater performance from multiple international sites that are part of a phase II or phase II-B or phase III trial even. We have changed the way that we think about our training, and we've also changed the way we think about our training for our central raters. Across rater training, data monitoring, and central raters, we help raters with this new approach to understand how items within a rating scale are differentiated, how they're constructed, how they're related. It's all with the aim of improving coherence and reliability and reducing what in psychiatry we call type 2 placebo responses. Psychiatry distinguishes between type 1 and type 2 placebo. Type 1 placebo is a genuine improvement that a patient experiences due to taking a non-active medicine, such as a sugar pill or some other treatment, where the patient really feels better. It's not that they're trying to deceive us, it's not that they're trying to impress us, but they really do feel better. Where we've targeted our approaches with training is to type 2 placebo. Type 2 placebo is not there because the subject or the patient themselves feels better, but because the person who is administering the measures believes perhaps that the subject should feel better. We are targeting our approaches to the messy measurements to, as Rachel mentioned at the beginning, reducing the noise and increasing the signal detection through the training approaches. In addition to this, we are developing AI-based approaches to help us with the training. This is, I think, novel approaches and novel use of artificial intelligence to help us train the raters at a level that we need to, given the current environment and given the growth of our business. I'll end there and pass it back to Rachel, but I'm sure we can address some questions if there are any. Thank you. Thank you very much, Luka and Paul. Before I hand to Brad to summarize, I wanted to just share a bit about how we're scaling the delivery model to support this volume of growth. Cogstate are investing in a clinical trials delivery platform. It's built on advanced workflow automation and an intelligent orchestration layer with embedded AI. At its core, the platform automates repeatable elements of trial delivery and fundamentally change how projects are planned, executed, and monitored at Cogstate. This moves us away from fragmented manual processes towards a scalable technology-enabled operating model. It unlocks meaningful capacity, coordinates work more effectively across people and systems, and it improves the consistency of delivery, all while increasing throughput without the linear headcount growth. Just as importantly, there's a real focus on enhancing the customer experience through this, with greater transparency, more predictable timelines, and consistently high-quality delivery across studies, no matter where the work is being done. We see this as an ongoing investment in a scalable operating model, not a one-time build, and a key driver of margin expansion over the medium term. This is something that we'll talk more about in the coming release of the full-year annual results. Brad, maybe I'll hand to you for a summary. Thank you, Rachel. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Luka. I think that was great. As you'll see from this, what we're trying to do with these sessions is we're not talking to our financial results. There's no mention of revenue and margins and profitability. What we're trying to do is allow you to understand what we're seeing inside the business and how we're seeing growth. There's no doubt that we're seeing sales momentum is strong in the business. The opportunities, the shots on goal is growing substantially, and we're seeing an increase in sales contracts and the value of sales contracts that come with that. We look forward to sharing with you the results from the June quarter, and we'll be releasing those on the 8th of July. We'll see, and we're expecting again to show a strong June quarter in terms of sales contracts. Importantly, we're seeing that diversification into different indications. If people who have been following Cogstate for some time, you'll know that our business out there and our commercial opportunity was really built around Alzheimer's disease. What we're seeing now is that push beyond Alzheimer's into psychiatry, into these orexin programs, into rare disease, and with multiple large pharma-preferred relationships, where we're developing that deep partner relationship that we really pride ourselves on, and we think differentiates us from our competitors. At the same time, we're expanding our solutions to really cater for the way that the conduct of clinical trials is changing. Rachel's initial commentary around central rating and the use of our contracted workforce of neuropsychologists. We have over 400 contracting neuropsychologists around the world delivering solutions in local language via telehealth into these clinical trials. As Luka mentioned, there's some real advantages and some decrease in error that comes from that being not an in-person delivery of those assessments, but via a telehealth assessment, where we can keep that person, the rater, the doctor conducting the assessment, we can keep them blinded to whether the person is on drug or is on the placebo. That's really important in terms of reducing that type 2 error that Luka was talking about. We think the company's really well-positioned for growth. We look forward to sharing with you our 2026 results in August. Just some upcoming dates that we'll note before opening up to questions. As I mentioned, we'll be releasing our June quarterly on the 8th of July. That'll just be our sales number. Importantly, it'll also provide the contracted revenue position as at 1st of July, as we head into the FY 2027 financial year. We'll be releasing our full-year results on Tuesday the 18th of August, and then the September quarterly at the start of October, 12th of October, followed by our AGM on the 15th of October. With that, Bec, I'll hand it over to you and questions. Thanks for that, Brad. Super interesting insight to the clinical trials business. Let's kick off the questions, and it's great to see questions coming into the chat, so please continue to add them there. The first one, Alzheimer's and related neurology still look material in your mix. Are you confident that psychiatry, sleep disorders, and rare disease trials can sustain strong growth over, say, the next three to five years? Look, I'll start there and then I'll maybe hand over to Rachel. I think certainly in terms of opportunities that we're seeing. In psychiatry, that's an enormous area that, as Luka mentioned, we've expanded our solutions there. We're really just getting started there in terms of that growth profile. We're really confident there. Then I think as Paul mentioned in the orexin programs, we expect that we're about to get to the approval of the first treatment type 1 narcolepsy. Again, I think we're just starting there, and as Paul mentioned, we're seeing that expansion of these orexin programs looking at other indications. Again, I think we think substantial growth there. We've continued to see growth in rare disease trials, and that's been consistent for us. We also think that Alzheimer's disease has a lot of growth in it, particularly as we await the outcome from these sort of pre-symptomatic trials that are ongoing. I think from our perspective, the opportunity for growth is there. The question is, how do we go and execute on it? Rachel, I don't know if you want to add some comments there. Yeah, no, I agree. I think in psychiatry, it's a large and growing addressable market, where I think our channel partnerships are another key reason. We'll keep seeing more of these. We've historically not been in a leadership position where we're winning most of that market share. There's still a lot more for us to grow into. We're set up to deliver well. We've invested in the space. We're bringing on additional scientific resources, and we'll continue to invest, as Luka said, in the innovations in that space as well, where we're bringing on different technologies and training modalities. I think that one we're very confident in our ability to grow that over the medium term. I would say with narcolepsy, as Paul pointed out, really positioning ourselves as having an ability to sort of be the gold standard in how you measure cognition in this class of drug or mechanism. As we see that going into additional indications, even beyond sleep-wake disorders, I think also presents a really exciting opportunity there, even beyond narcolepsy. I think that gives us the confidence that that will be a growing place, even outside of sort of the maybe more niche application of narcolepsy specifically. Great. Next question. Pipeline opportunities in the first half 2026 report in February were circa 85, in this presentation look to be around 160. Are you able to explain this increase? I think you just need to look at the X-axis there. I think the previous demonstration of this was a quarterly presentation, but data on this is just a half-yearly. The fact that it's basically a doubling is just that it's two quarters. I think that's all that's going on there. Apologies for confusing people by changing the axis Yeah. Good clarification. Thanks, Brad. Can you talk at a high level about the quantum or length of contracts in narcolepsy relative to, say, Alzheimer's or other disease areas? Paul, do you want to take this just in terms of the timing of narcolepsy trials in terms of how quickly they run versus an Alzheimer's disease trial? Sure thing. One of the great surprises for us, having worked so long in Alzheimer's disease is when the narcolepsy studies began, they were pretty much done by the time we'd neatened up our desks and got ready for the results, right? Generally speaking, those two phase III programs that reported out were 12 weeks of the trial ran. The answer, the claim about the effectiveness of the drug is based on those. Of course, like a lot of these medicines, individuals then get the opportunity to go into long-term extensions, and those extensions run over couples of years. At the same time, because the programs are new, better drugs, if you like, safer drugs, or if you like, not drugs, variations on the molecules come out that can be used at lower doses or less volume or with less side effects. These studies run quickly, at least in the sleep-disordered areas. It may change as we move into, say, something like depression or Parkinson's disease. You may want to examine it over longer periods of time. Rather when you replace orexin in the central nervous system, the activity starts happening immediately. Yeah, very short. Great. Do you see a use for Cogstate outside the trial setting, say in clinical practice? Yeah, I think this is a really interesting thing, Paul, I'll come to you in a second to talk about the measurement of cognition in narcolepsy outside of clinical trials. I think there is an opportunity, and I think one of the things that, and particularly that Paul's done a fantastic job of, and the whole science team, is positioning the Cogstate digital assessments as key or primary cognitive endpoints in these trials. I think there is a question, Paul, of what happens in the community post-release of trials to continue to monitor that benefit. Yep. This question about the use of Cogstate in clinical practice has been with us since we began, is how do we take these tests and use them in clinical practice? We have attempted a number of times and learned a great deal from those events. Essentially the success in that is having a very clear understanding of not so much how the test is used, but what decision is made on the basis of the test. That's the first thing. Why are doctors going to use it? It's not enough just to provide them with the information, with the test. You have to actually also give them a framework. The second thing is, on the basis of that information, what do they do next? Interestingly, a lot of stuff with Cogstate technology is not so much about the test, but more about what decision you make on the basis of the test. Two emerging areas where I think this is important is, as we've seen with narcolepsy, that clinicians may wish to either reassure their patients that their cognition is improving as a consequence. Our anthropological work, if you like, in narcolepsy is that everyone complains that they don't think as clearly as they should or that their memory's problematic. Having something that you can reassure patients and show them that this benefits as a consequence of treatment, that might be the case. These drugs might be also so good that you just feel great that that's not unnecessary, like with a GLP, right? I don't need to get on the scales to show that I've lost weight. The second issue is in Alzheimer's disease. The area that we've always been working in is the extent to which Cogstate tests can guide decision-making in the context of Alzheimer's disease management. To some extent, it's a similar issue now that with the approval of drugs, and greater use of those by doctors in either general practice or in specialty practice, the decision-making pathways are becoming clear. We know our tests work. We know we can give the data back. We know we have them approved in FDA regulatory frameworks. We know all that. We just have to understand how they're used properly. Again, only after 20 years do we say it's imminent that they're going to be used. I think in both of these fields, the remarkable change is the availability of drugs that are curative or restorative of the disease. The decision becomes very clear. Does this person warrant treatment, and is this treatment safe, and is this treatment efficacious? We can sort of align our technology and our decision, like our information feedback systems against those decisions. Thanks, Paul. Next question. To what extent is your diversification into areas such as narcolepsy and psychiatry being driven by channel partners versus broadening Cogstate's internal capabilities? Rachel, do you want to take this one? Sure. Yeah, it was intentionally both. We knew from working with our channel partners what their customer base and their RFP base looked like. We were very intentional about building that capability, particularly within psychiatry. With narcolepsy, it was a bit different. Narcolepsy was less dependent on channel partners. It was really more about those deep science relationships, particularly with Paul, working very closely with our customers to understand their pipeline and the needs that they had. That allowed us to be quite strategic and work ahead of them in developing the right digital cognitive tests on our platform. They liked that idea of they needed something quite innovative to get the right measure in place, but they wanted to deliver it on a compliant and proven platform and framework. That's what we were able to provide. Add to that a bit of luck with the success that's happened in those programs, and so we've got ourselves more of a leadership position. Certainly in psychiatry, it's definitely been driven by the sort of the sales reach of these larger channel partnerships. We had to be ready to absorb that with some strategic investments that we started about 18 months ago. Yeah. Perhaps just as an extension to that question, given the focus today on narcolepsy and psychiatry, are these the two focus areas outside of Alzheimer's? They are two focus areas outside of Alzheimer's. I would say rare is a continued, it's not all rare, but the neurodevelopmental disorders, where there's the clinical outcome assessments that have the same needs in terms of endpoint data quality, that's another key growth area that we believe will very much continue and should continue to drive the same 25-ish of our RFP volume that we've seen historically. I think we'll see these as our core focus areas. There's a couple of others that sort of bubble up, and we're seeing increasingly prevalent and we may make some focused investments there. Parkinson's and other Parkinsonian disorders are another area where we are winning work. We've been focused a bit on a certain part of those outcome measures, a certain section of those outcome measures, and we have an opportunity to think about that more broadly. I think that's something that we're still evaluating. I would say these are the two main sort of growth areas outside of rare. Great. Thanks, Rachel. Related to winning the work in new indications, clinical trials, do you see any trend in the win rate yet converting pipeline to new contracts? It's on the presumption, the more track record that Cogstate gains, the higher win rate will be. Secondly, do you see increasing competition on these new frontiers? Yeah. It's a good one. I'll answer the first one, Rachel, you think about the second one. In terms of win rate, we sort of expected when we went to market with new partners, you expect to see a lower win rate initially. I think that's what we've seen. I think we're seeing that reverting to the mean over time as we become more established, and so we're comfortable with where win rates are. On this graph that's shown on the screen now, we would expect the increase in sales to lag from a timeline point of view, the increase in opportunities, just because there's a sales process that takes some weeks and months sometimes to execute. That's always going to be the identification of opportunity and then the closing of that opportunity is always going to have some sort of time lag behind it. We think win rates are in order of Certainly, our win rate through channel partnerships doesn't yet replicate our win rate when we go to market alone. I think that can be somewhat misunderstood because when we're deeply embedded with a customer, and we have the likes of Paul and Luka and our other scientists advising them on endpoint selection and trial design, we're right in there from the start. I think the channel partnerships just come at it from a more, what you'd consider a more traditional sales, a request for proposal type, and request for information type workflow, and therefore the win rate in that is probably going to be slightly slower than we see in those direct relationships when we're advising people. Rachel, do you want to comment on the competition piece? Yeah. I would say, just to expand a moment on what you were mentioning about the win rate, that I agree that when working through partnerships, it can be impacted, and I think it is our aim to become very sophisticated and good at partnerships, especially with our tightest channel partners. I think accessing, getting that peer-to-peer and science-to-science relationships early is going to be key in that, and figuring out how do we navigate co-selling through our channels, so that we can achieve that. I think the opportunity for that is a little less in the CRO side of things with, we have channel partners and eCOA partnerships as well as with contract research organizations. I would say in that slice of the channel relationships, it's a bit harder to impact. We have a more challenging time getting that access to customer, where we have a very reliable and predictable win rate when working. We understand what that is, and it sort of is what it is. We don't expect it will impact that much. I do think with our channel partners that are of the eCOA type, like our Medidata and Clinical Ink partnerships, that we will just see that increase over time as we become more expert at going to market together. Can you repeat back the competition component of the question? It was really just a question around are you seeing sort of emerging competition as you start to do more of these new frontier clinical trials? It's not so much new, just we're sort of the emerging competition. It's that there's a couple of established players in psychiatry at least, where we had previously not addressed that market as well, likely because of our limited sales team and also just what our internal capabilities looked like previously to that investment in psychiatry. I would say that we're probably the newer entrant and gaining market share through that. Thank you. Does Cogstate have any involvement with university-led academic research in addition to your partnerships with pharmaceutical and biotechnology? Yeah, we have some. Cogstate through our history has provided our digital assessments at low or no cost to academic researchers. We're continuing that. That was a little too popular and became a burden to manage. We're a little more selective now, certainly we still collaborate with academic researchers. Okay. What impact does Lilly buying Centessa have given the existing relationship with Lilly? We also had an existing relationship with Centessa, I don't think that's an immediate difference from our point of view. I think what we would expect, though, this is just not based on any inside knowledge, but just looking at the market generally, that you would expect to see an increase in R&D spend, or at least the rate of R&D spend with respect to those Centessa assets, just because of Lilly's balance sheet and R&D spend, and access to capital changes that obviously will impact those assets within Centessa. Terrific. Just down to the last few questions. Can you share the most exciting new solution from Cogstate that you'll either soon launch or have recently launched to increase revenue per contract? Yeah. That's a very broad question. There's so many different things. Absolutely. Look, I do think the work that we're doing and the changes that we're seeing in terms of how we're delivering solutions, what Rachel talked about with the central rating, I think is really important. I think what we're looking at from an AI perspective, both in terms of new product, as well as how we deliver our solution. The operating model that we work within, I think is really exciting. I think some of the data analysis that we're doing, particularly on the Cogstate digital assessments in the area of pre-symptomatic Alzheimer's disease. There's some data that we're presenting at the upcoming Alzheimer's Association International Conference in London in July. At another Alzheimer's meeting in October, where again, had some data accepted there for presentation that shows the really good effects of the Cogstate digital assessments in terms of identification of really subtle change. Probably more importantly, with the ability to show some predictive value of decline in that pre-symptomatic population. I think that data's really interesting and positions us really well in terms of winning continued work in that really exciting area. Great. In both of the growth areas shared today, what is the current versus expected future mix between contracts for phase I, II, and III trials? We don't do a lot of work in phase I, which are safety trials generally. Mainly phase II and phase III. Look, I think we're starting to see now in, particularly narcolepsy, some of the programs that we've been working on for some time pushing into phase III. Paul mentioned the Takeda program that's public now, that they've just completed the phases III. I think as a general rule, when we're winning new work, the idea is you try and win that work at a phase II, and provided that the compound or the program is successful, that we follow that through to phase III, and those sort of basic rules apply. We're obviously winning a degree of new work, particularly in psychiatry. Generally speaking, we're winning that work in phase II, and then that matures into phase III over time. Great. Final question for today. Are you observing lower conversion on the large channel partner pipeline? I don't know that we're seeing lower conversion. I think you're pitching a new offering. I think the other thing that's important to understand is that sometimes we'll be pitching to the same program a couple of different ways, either through different channel partners or directly, or as well as through a channel partner. I think it's just different. I don't know that we're seeing necessarily lower conversion. Rachel, I don't know if you want to comment on that. No, I think that's accurate. I think it's accurate. We are still trying to understand it, because what we're doing with some of our channel partners, it's sort of pushing us into areas that are adjacent to our core and even outside of CNS, where we're doing rater training in atopic dermatitis, for example. In those areas, we don't know what the expected win rate should be. It's sort of incremental, where we don't have an expectation around the award. I think that just the dynamics of those channel partnerships is such that we're still really understanding what is the expected win rate there. I will say we're seeing it grow, and especially in our core area. There's a bit we're sort of aligning what we're known for and our experience set with that becoming what our partners are known for and their experience set. As those two things come in alignment, we're seeing an increase in our win rate there. I think it's still a bit of a moving target, but something that's quite productive at the moment. Okay. With that, Brad, over to you to conclude. Thank you everyone. Thanks for your attention. The recording of this will be up on our investor page shortly. Just a reminder of those dates. Wednesday, 8th of July is the next market release. Thank you very much for your attention. We feel really confident in terms of the business, its current state and the growth profile, and the opportunities that we see in front of us. We look forward to reporting you on that shortly. Thanks for your time. Thank you all