Order. When we think about that, we mapped at least 400 critical positions that for sure we needed to replace. That is how I think about that, in itself. When I think about how we continue to work with our personnel, I think there are a few things that you have to keep in mind. The first one is, as an SOE, and given the career tenure, there are many things that you tack on to the personnel costs. That is a comparison that everybody used to make about the average personnel cost for Sabesp compared to the market and to other companies. We start to see that change in the mix and the average cost in the new hiring process. This is one of the things that you have to keep in mind. I think it's kind of actually the opposite, Bruno. As an SOE, the company had to wait for a public servant test to recruit people. We no longer have to do that. There were many positions that were hired through third-party services because the company simply couldn't hire people. We're actually looking at how and which positions of those are actually positions that we want to internalize and actually to make offers to these people. We actually expect a bit of the opposite. There are other things that are gonna materialize in terms of savings and so on. This will bring in itself savings to the company because we'll no longer have to pay a margin for someone that's actually outsourcing that. But more than that, I think there will be things that will actually require investment and will require changes in processes that will happen throughout our journey here. For example, the S4 go-l ive that, which will happen in, in the middle of 2026, is for sure one of those enablers. but there are many other things that we're doing in terms of investments, the smart metering and other things that will actually enable us to continue, becoming more and more efficient and actually using people for more value-added activities vis-à-vis manual repetitive tasks. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you, Bruno. The next one comes from Luiza Candiota from Itaú. Luiza. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity. Actually, my question is a follow-up on Bruno's question regarding personnel expenses. We observed a significant year-over-year reduction in this line, mainly due to the employee layoffs, as you mentioned during the presentation. I would just like to get more color on the exact impact of the most recent voluntary dismissal program in this quarter. If you could, share more details on the expected cost savings going forward, the expected payback period coming from this program, and also the timeline for the departures. Thank you. Thank you, Luiza. Thank you for your question. I'll take this one too. Look, we had about 2,040 people that actually adhered to the voluntary dismissal plan. We started the departures in February 2025, so we do not see a lot of impact from that plan in Q1. That said, we ended 2024 with about 10,500 employees, and we ended Q1 with 9,700 employees. We had already a relatively big departure in March, but the bulk of the departure actually happens between April and May. I think at the end of Q2, we should probably be relatively well in terms of the execution itself of the voluntary dismissal plan. In parallel, like I mentioned, we will probably be rehiring some of those positions in the market, but again, at probably a lower average cost as we have seen so far. If you compare SOE's average personnel cost compared to regular companies, especially on the base of the pyramid, they're very different. This is what we'll expect. We'll see, we'll see in the upcoming months. We're not necessarily disclosing the payback of the plan, but one thing that you should keep in mind is we have a no layoff policy until January and April 2026 with different triggers. For sure, the plan has to pay back better than this, 'cause otherwise we just wait for it, right? I think that's a good thing to keep in mind as like what would be your ceiling in terms of payback. That's what we probably could comment on that. Thank you. The next question comes from Francisco Navarrete from BBI. Nava, d o you want to open your mic and go ahead? Thank you, Daniel. Piani and Thiago, thank you very much for the call. I just have two questions if I may. One is regarding the tariff mix. You indicated that, because of this mix and the Cad Único, you had a negative impact of BRL 100 million, BRL 105 million estimated in the first quarter. First, just to see if I'm getting this right, this would mean that maybe if you forecast it for the full year it would be equivalent to about BRL 400 million. Can you recover this at the tariff review? I understand that this increase in the number of consumers with access to subsidized tariffs makes all the sense in the world because you're including them in the Cad Único because, of course, they should be enrolled in this program. Makes sense. I suppose, and I believe so. Will the regulator be sensible to look at this from the standpoint that this is public policy and should be public policy and not something that should be paid by the company and by investors? If I may, sorry, Daniel, go. No, no. Go ahead. If you have a follow-up, go ahead. No, the second question was only about what Carlos said on the gap, on the revenue gap, that BRL 50 million or BRL 60 million that will remain. All else held equal. Just imagine that, just for the sake of argument, we do not get any other fix into this. The curve to get to the 50-60 as a permanent gap will be, I imagine, only 2026. Would that be a correct statement? Like first quarter 2026 is when I would see this gap going forward of only BRL 50 million-BRL 60 million. Just for the sake of argument, would that be a correct statement? Those two questions only. Thank you very much again. Thank you, Nava. Let me first address the mix question, right? We had a BRL 105 million negative impact from mix. This is driven by two factors mainly. The first one is as per the new contract, we used to have social and vulnerable tariffs that had a criteria. For the new contract, we had to introduce Cadastro Único. We had to harmonize Cadastro Único as the eligibility criteria for these tariffs. That meant that we would exclude people that had access to vulnerable social tariffs with this new scheme, right? What we decided, when we saw that in December, what we decided to do was to extend that for a few months, which is going to happen until the end of Q2, with access to those subsidized tariffs, for many reasons. In the end, when we think about the BRL 105 million that we had in Q1, I would say, Nava, about 60% of that is the adoption of Cadastro Único. That would be for sure contemplated into the new tariff revision at the end of the year. If you think about that and you think about the expansion, and if you recall in last quarter's call, one of the investors actually asked a question about how this would impact our mix in terms of economies as we grow, right? Because we grow, we typically grow, especially in the metropolitan regions, we grow to lower income economies, right? That will be a mixed impact. The first year, naturally is a negative working capital, I wanna say, impact because you get a compensation for that into the next tariff cycle. With the last year, assuming you don't continue growing to lower income economies, you don't continue worsening your mix with regards to average price, you actually get a positive carryover at the last year. It is just a head and tail effect with roughly 60% of that. The remaining 40% of that was done at our discretion as a company, and we'll continue doing that until the end of Q2. After that, we are discussing together with the regulator and the government a potential expansion of the subsidized rates to make sure that we encompass the whole population that is currently receiving these discounts. If that does happen, then we would get compensation for that, and we will keep these people in the tariffs. That is how you should think about that going forward. Understood. That's the, that's the first question. Your second question, with regards to commercial discounts, I think what Piani said is, is where we've first rescinded 580 contracts, give or take, and with that, we captured about BRL 500 million of potential discounts, which we have about BRL 5 million-BRL 6 million per month now that are actually fighting for with injunctions. We so far have been successful at that. We've won more than what we lost, which is always a good thing to happen. We've taken the remaining BRL 260 million that we had in terms of discounts, and we've rescinded another 200 of that. When we think about those 200 that we've rescinded, naturally they're not all like a flip of a switch, rescission, right? There are some contracts that need to run off. There are some contracts that have 60 days, some contracts that will have 90 days, some that will have 120 days, and so on and so forth, and different contracts. We will potentially see a movement on injunctions as well there. We are ready for that. We will continue to do what we believe is correct and fair for the whole system, which is continue to try to enforce the actual tariff for those clients. The timing of that could vary depending on that. Nava, I think optimistically we would finish the year with all of that captured, and that is what we are working against. That could vary depending on clients' decisions with regards to trying to enforce that at the legal front. That would be the part that we do not control. Understood. Thank you, Daniel. I have had to just add a couple of things on the two points. Our commitment was to finance with our own balance sheet until May of this year. We have aligned with the government starting in June, or there is going to be a change on the eligibility process that will encompass more consumers, or these consumers will become regular residential consumers. We have discussed many alternatives with the government and with the regulatory agency, and this will happen starting in June. We are going to stop financing at the end of May. Two options: they become naturally regular consumers, or they are going to be able to receive the benefits given a potential change, and this is going to be compensated two years down the road. This is it. Regarding the discounts, where the injunctions happen because we have no decision at the first level. We're working with the Court of Appeals at the second level. When we get there, this is gonna be a judicial prudence. We're gonna have a rule that's gonna decide this very quickly. We expect when we get there, there's gonna be no injunctions anymore. As Daniel said, probably the longer tenure that we have is 120 days on this new batch of contracts that we're terminating. All that to say, probably this is by year end. This is unfortunately Brazil courts a little bit more complicated, but I think we're in a good track to solve the majority of these problems. Great. Understood. Thank you very much. Thank you, Nava. The next question comes from Antonio Junqueira from BTG Pactual. Antonio. Morning, guys. My question was mostly answered in Navarrete's question. My question was answered, I guess, mostly, if not 100% of it. I think it's clear, like the fingerprints of you guys on cost control, on investments, on the development of you factor. Thanks, by the way, for that slide. It's interesting. I think I can complement his question by asking how the relationship with the regulator is, because this revenue gap thing is a historical problem for Sabesp. I think all of us analysts always achieved much larger regulatory revenues than actual revenues. The previous administrations could not explain all the gaps, why the gaps existed. I think there was a philosophical debate on wholesale discounts, on, you know, some variables that created that big gap, but the entire gap was never explained. How is the interaction of, you know, about all those topics with the regulator? How is he receiving it? Because I guess like the regulator has also been a reason for skepticism on our side. How do you, how's your confidence level that we're not gonna see revenue gap from the tariff event of the end of this year onwards? Thank you. Thank you, Junqueira. I think we can give you our perception, right? And how we think, on an incentive-based regulation, the one we have a hybrid regulation, but based on incentive-based regulation where you have RAB concept and regulatory costs and so forth, you need a strong regulator. This is to the benefit of the company. I think our sister is a strong regulator, and this is helpful to us, right? If we had a weak regulator that did not understand the rules and had different parameters, this would be a different problem to solve. Our interactions based on this have been very good, I would say, as very republic, relationship, very technical, many challenges of the new contract for both sides. Of course, I think the expectations of having Sabesp as a private player are higher. At the end of the day, everybody expects more of the private player, and we hope to deliver. I think that we're gonna be able at the end of the day to solve most of the issues. I'm not gonna guarantee that we're gonna solve all the issues, right? I think we're gonna solve most of the issues through time. I don't see, to your point, that the agency is a restriction for our performance. I see it the other way. I'm telling this publicly on this call because I already told them publicly in another event with them on my side. I think this is to the benefit of Sabesp. I think we would have benefit in other states if we had stronger regulators, to have those discussions. I think through time we're gonna show, through results, objective results that this is feasible for us to achieve given this relationship and how competent they are. Thank you. Understood. There's no major pushback, technical pushback on their side when you debate this revenue gap, right? No, they weren't just, they said the rules are the rules. You should follow the rules. When the rules don't make sense, they hear. I can tell you this is the most technical relationship with a regulator that I had in many years. Up to so far, so good. Cool. Thank you, guys. Good. Our next and final question comes from Andre Sampaio. Sampaio, would you like to go ahead? Hey guys, good morning. Very briefly here, I just wanna hear you guys a bit about the rural census. What is the expectation to when we should have that ready and what do you guys expect in terms of the impact for the project? I mean, the projections going forward? My second question was related to the tariffs as well. Fully, already, discuss it. First on the rural census. I can take that, this one. We already hired the third-party provider. There was a rule on the contract how to do this. We've already been through this. Again, start Q3, beginning Q3. There's an 18-month timeframe at the very end of the period to validate and provide a final report. We expect to have intermediary results starting even in the second half of the year. We can have a basis to compare to the plans that we're doing for the works until the end of the 2029 cycle. On track, no major issue here. Timeframe is long, until the end of the year, but probably we as the concessionary, we're gonna receive partial results first, and probably the public, the final results are gonna be public at year end of next year. Just to give you a few numbers on that and actual dates, the field work actually is gonna start in June 2025. It is gonna be a long work. We'll probably have about 400 people on the ground doing that census, just to give you some color on that. Guys, let me see if I get this right. Let's imagine we have a census which has a much higher expectation of, let me say, demand for CapEx. That, I would say, would be something that we would probably have to have some discussion with the regulator and the government about adjusting tariffs potentially on the revision, right? Yeah. If, in theory, let me see if I understood your question. In theory, what you're saying is if there is a variation on the CapEx, because in the end, the rural census shows you that you actually have to do more than what was originally thought of on the appendix of the concession agreement. Is that how? Yes. Okay. In the end, given the contractual model that we have, if the CapEx is prudent, it gets compensated on the RAB for sure. The concession, so the URI has an expectation of how much the tariffs are gonna increase to the consumers. If that's materially different, they of course need to discuss and understand. In theory, this shouldn't be a change to the contract, you know? It may be a change in expectations, but it shouldn't represent a change in the contract. Yeah. Let me add here. There's a provision in the contract, if there's a gap larger or equal to three percentage points in coverage, on the eve of switching between 2026 and 2027, there may be a time to discuss. That's the provision. Maybe depending on the census where you have a larger rural population than expected, this may be triggered. We do not see this. If this happens, it will not happen on the eve of 2027. We will receive this by municipality, by municipality, and the final result will happen just by year end of 2026. We will see the buildup of this gap through time, and we will have the time to manage this deviation from expectation. We just need to understand how we can communicate this to the market, given this is under the regulatory contract. We do not see, just to be clear, this as an issue or additional risk for Sabesp. We are on track and everything is working well. Thanks for the time. Thank you. The Q&A session is now over. We wish to give the floor back to Mr. Carlos Piani for the company's closing remarks. Thank you all for the questions, and thank you again for joining us today. We appreciate your continued interest and support as we move forward with the transformation of Sabesp. We know that the road ahead is ambitious, but we're confident in the path that we're taking, and more importantly, in our ability to deliver results that create value for all stakeholders. We look forward to keeping you updated on our progress in the coming quarters. Have a great day today. Bye-bye. Sabesp earnings presentation is now closed. Thank you very much for your participation, and we wish you all a very good day.