Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for being here. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Manav Patnaik. I cover business and information services for Barclays. We're pleased to kick off the afternoon session here with the team from Thomson Reuters. As you can see on the screen, we've got Steve Hasker, who's the CEO, but we also have Gary Bisbee, who's Head of IR, and Kirsty Roth, who's the Chief Operations and Technology Officer joining us here. We're in, we're in battleground mode here, you know, bear with us. Steve, maybe just to start at a, at a high level, you know, given all the debate, the noise, maybe it's worth just taking a step back and from your perspective, you know, how do you describe Thomson Reuters and its positioning and its moats today to a new investor? I mean, we've been saying for a number of years now that we have a nice tailwind behind us, which is the growing complexity associated with compliance. That's legal compliance, tax and accounting, audit-related compliance. We're one of the few companies that have the content-driven technology to enable companies and their advisors to meet or exceed the needs of those compliance requirements without adding a lot of headcount. That's the first tailwind, and that's helped drive us from when Kirsty and I joined the company five, six years ago, we were growing our big three at low single digits to now we're in high singles and we've got line of sight to, we think, double-digit growth in the years to come for the big three franchises. I think the second tailwind for us is AI. You know, we've been in the advanced machine learning space for 30 years. We put a functioning search algorithm on the front of the Westlaw dataset in the early 1990s before Google was commercialized. When ChatGPT passed the bar exam, it wasn't sort of entirely new territory for us, and it's certainly something that Kirsty and her teams have worked on before that and very intensively since. Essentially what agentic AI enables us to do is play a much larger role in the success of our customers. In other words, for a tax and accounting professional, instead of merely being the tax calculation engine, we can now provide an end-to-end agentic solution which covers all aspects of the tax return process. For a litigator, instead of being the primary litigation research dataset, we're now in the drafting business. Whether that's a contract, a motion to dismiss, a motion to compel, a rebuttal and so forth. The reason we are confident in this AI environment, despite all the noise, is our positioning. We're the only company we believe that can provide fiduciary-grade AI. This is a term we've coined in the last couple of months, particularly with the sort of emergence of the horizontal players like Claude and Gemini and so forth. Fiduciary-grade is basically serving those professions where they cannot afford to be wrong. They cannot afford to hallucinate. For those of you who follow the legal profession, you will have seen that several of the global large law firms have stumbled very badly in the last couple of months in the context of big transactions, big litigations, whereby they have used a generic chatbot, produced the wrong results, and then had the opposing counsel, in most cases supported by Thomson Reuters AI solutions, point out the holes. In other words, you know, pull their pants down in front of a judge or in front of their clients. The reason we are advantaged in this environment is firstly, we have the content. 85% of our content is not publicly available. It's been created and curated by our experts. Secondly, we have the experts to help train our agents. Kirsty's team have done a wonderful job of taking all of that expertise out of the heads of 2,700 deep practice experts and ensuring that our agents, including CoCounsel Legal, which was launched in beta a couple of weeks ago, behave like a highly tenured expert. Thirdly, we've got data privacy and protection protocols that no one else has. What I mean by that is, we make a promise to our customers, which is their input will not become part of our AI output. That is quite unique in Silicon Valley, right? Everyone else is sort of putting an agent out there, putting a chatbot out there, and learning from the queries. We are not. The reason we're not, we don't have to, is because we have our own experts in-house and we have our own content. Last but not least, we've got exhaustive customer support. The reason I point that out, it sounds quite mundane, but if you use Westlaw Advantage, our AI, agentic AI product, or you use CoCounsel, you get a result that you don't understand, you can call a highly tenured attorney live 24/7, and he or she will have access to the query that you've run and also has a deep understanding of that particular practice area. You can ask them, "Well, why is it producing this result? I'm in front of a judge tomorrow. I cannot afford to be wrong. I don't understand the result that's coming up. You can track and trace it all the way back to its source, and the same in the tax and accounting, the same in the audit professions." You know, you've got to ask yourself, are some of the startups or the frontier models themselves going to have that level of personal support? They're not, right? Yeah. We think that that positions us to coexist with the frontier models, but to be the only player who can truly serve this fiduciary-grade AI. That's why we're bullish, and we're particularly bullish on the back of yesterday's results, where our legal professionals business ex the government component grew by 11% organically. That's the highest we've seen. We're confident that we can sort of drive this AI roadmap through our offerings and see accelerating organic growth. Got it. Kirsty, maybe from your standpoint as well, you were Chief Transformation Officer when you guys first created what's now just Tax and Accounting. What is the biggest change or your competitive advantages from your standpoint from a, you know, your tech role as well? Yeah, I mean, if you think about it, right, like, all roles are impacted by AI. Certainly, you know, whilst, as Steve described, we're putting a huge amount of effort in what we put in the products. We're also changing the way we operate company. You know, I just think that has huge implications, right? Like the, you know, the speed with which we're launching features faster than we ever have done. We are, you know, putting out new products in market. We're really able, as Steve described, therefore, to help our customers move from, you know, if you take tax, just a world where they're returning, providing returns to getting into advisory services, right? 'Cause you crunch the amount of time they're spending on a return. You know, the upleveling we've seen in early days, particularly in the engineering and the support teams, for how much work they can get through, that means we can move more quickly, I think is sort of super exciting. We'll see that sort of through every function, Manav. I think that also gives us a real advantage. We started that kind of work about two and a half years ago. I, you know, I talk to a lot of peers who are COOs of, I call us all legacy companies, right? You know, all those kind of companies, I know we're in a really good spot as to what we're doing, I think that's really important. I don't think you can be in this world and be standing still and just taking advantage. You've actually got to reinvent the whole way you operate right now, so that you're moving more quickly and serving your customers even better. That's exciting because we're seeing real results. Got it. Talking about real results, Gary, you know, firstly, thank you for reporting and getting on a plane right away to come here. Maybe just help us with last night's results, a quick summary. I mean, it wasn't perfect, but it was one of the stronger quarters you guys have reported. If you can just quick highlights there. For sure. You know, we reported 8% organic revenue growth across this whole company. We had, that's up from seven that we reported throughout 2025, and we had guided for the quarter for seven. The outperformance was driven by our legal business and our corporates business. In legal, you know, as Steve Hasker referenced, we grew the law firm customers, so that excludes the government customers, by 11%. That was up from 9% last quarter. And the acceleration there is driven by the tremendous success we've had with the launch of Westlaw Advantage, the new top tier that we launched last August, and continued strong growth at CoCounsel, the AI system product. You know, I think we feel really good about the result. We also, as Steve said, discussed fiduciary-grade AI and shared for the first time some incremental customer usage data that I think supports the story we're telling and we're seeing, which is that we're seeing strong customer adoption and usage of these products that, you know, you see flowing through to better revenue growth. For the full year, we reiterated our guidance across revenue and profits and, you know, feel really good about the start to the year we've had and the outlook, the outlook for the business, particularly on the back of that strengthening in the Legal- Got it. In the legal business. Steve, maybe let's start talking about some of this noise. Yeah. - that you were alluding to. Maybe let's start with the Claude releases. Last night, there was something around the financial plugins. In February, it was specific to the legal plugins. There was obviously a crazy reaction in February, you know, harsh reaction yesterday. Then you were on stage with Claude as well. Yeah. What's really going on? What's the partnership like there? The way we've built our AI offerings, we're model agnostic. We can and we do chop and change between whatever is the best frontier model at any particular time. For CoCounsel Legal, that's the Claude Sonnet 4.6 now Sonnet 4.7. You know, it may change as things go on. For our Tax and Accounting products, that has been the latest ChatGPT models. We also have built our own model. It's called Thomson, that's gonna go into sort of full release as we go through this year. The reason I point that out is it's a large language model built specific for legal. It's entirely owned and operated by us, built by a number of former Google DeepMind scientists who are on staff. You know, It's starting to outperform the very best of the frontier models in terms of speed and accuracy for certain legal tasks. That gives us a level of optionality as we go forward. We have a relationship with Anthropic. They are a big vendor to us. We've done a lot of co-development with them. I think there are opportunities for us to expand that set of arrangements in various ways. I think, though, there's a, there's a sort of an assumption from investors that these frontier models are gonna sort of eat all before them, right? They're gonna machine learn their way into the content sets. They're gonna be able to perform with sort of great levels of accuracy. We are very firmly of the view, based on everything we see, the customer interactions we have and the accuracy of our products, that this fiduciary grade is a spot that a general purpose model can't and won't meet that standard. You know, if you're a lawyer, you cannot afford to be wrong. If you're a tax accounting professional, you cannot afford to be wrong. The fines, the risk of losing your license, the loss of client relationships, all of those things mean that you need to have CoCounsel in addition to a CoWork plugin or a Copilot plugin or a Gemini plugin or whatever it might be. We're pretty confident that that's how the market will evolve. I think at the moment, you know, investors have sort of decided, well, if you're a native AI company and one of these frontier models, you're a winner. If you've been around for a while, you're a loser. This is why Kirsty's role is so important. The winners will be those who execute. I think our product roadmap is fairly clear, at least to us and to our customers, and the rate of innovation is accelerating at Thomson Reuters. For me, the only thing we're watching is just can we go faster and can we produce better and better products and more innovative products as we go? If we do that, we'll emerge, not only as the unequivocal winner as we have been over time in legal research and the tax calculation engine space, we'll also move into this broader workflow space, and that's a new term for us, and that's why we're confident we can see these accelerating growth rates. Got it. To your point on move faster- Yeah. I mean, some of this might just be perceptions. Kirsty, you can jump in as well. You know, when the FinTech competitors or the LegalTech competitors are talking, people think that's it, these are the smartest guys out there. I think a lot of your progress is very down to you. Yeah. Can I give you an example? Yeah. When I joined the company six years ago, we used to put out a new version of Westlaw sort of a couple of times a decade. It was a meaningful upgrade at each time. Yeah. Price premium associated, so forth. We put out a new version every four months. We started the work on Westlaw Deep Research, which is a fully agentic product, at the same time that ChatGPT's Deep Research product came out. We're able to outrun their Deep Research product in terms of its utility for high-end legal practice. You know, this is something where we've got to earn the right every single day in terms of our rate of innovation and the success of those innovations. For the professions that we serve, so tax, accounting, legal, audit, risk, fraud and compliance, I'd stand up our rate of innovation against anyone. Got it. You know, MCP is a big buzzword right now. Yeah. Can you just clarify, like, your partnership with these LLMs and the monetization model and what's actually being shared? Yeah. At the moment, they're fairly vanilla vendor relationships. We haven't gone into sort of complicated rev shares or any of those kinds of things, because it really is a case of picking the you know, doing comprehensive evals, picking the best model, utilizing that at that particular time. I think, though, there will be options going forward. The ask we get very regularly from all manner of players is they wanna get access to our content and to our experts, and we see no reason to share that IP with anybody at this point in time. Fair enough. Maybe shifting to, you know, I guess you guys, there's the content and research side of the market, and there's the workflow side of the market, where there's more of the debate. I know Steve, Kirsty, both of you talk to clients a lot. Can you just help us, you know, peel back the onion behind the scenes? What are the lawyers, your counterparts telling you about CoCounsel versus Harvey, Legora, all these other alternatives out there? What's really going on? Well, I'd say the first thing is, at the moment, the tools are 18-24 months ahead of the change management within the firms. I think there's this sort of narrative that these tools are there, it's all said and done, you know, the pick a profession that's been transformed. I think within software coding, that is a real simplistic but realistic picture. When it comes to the legal profession or the tax and accounting profession, it is very early days. What we find amongst our customers is we have a number of customers who are Thomson Reuters only, and then we'll have a number of customers who are trialing on a paid basis, Harvey or Legora or some other tool and ours as well. As I said, we're confident, particularly on the back of the CoCounsel Legal beta test that's now going on, that we'll emerge amongst that pack for the reasons I described. At the moment, there's a lot of experimentation, and the firms are just starting the underlying change management, which basically means rewiring the way in which the work product is produced and the interactions between a senior lawyer and a partner. Maybe the, maybe it's the experimentation that's a disconnect because I think the view is they go, "Harvey is going," whatever, "Legora." That means you've lost that opportunity. Yeah. Because it sounds like these are shorter term contracts. I mean, look, this is a market we weren't in, right? You know, I think it's interesting to see. To Steve's point, I mean, I was actually with a whole group of the sort of COOs of many of the biggest law firms yesterday. These are companies that have never really been through a huge amount of change. They're not great at change anyway, right? Even compared to corporates that are often not great at change. I think it's just fascinating to see. They've got all these tools they've bought to sort of feel like they're trying stuff out and feel like they're ticking a box, but they don't quite know what they want them to do. I think what they do know and where we get a lot of feedback is people don't really wanna buy five things. They might buy a Claude or a Copilot for some, the generic things that sort of doing office admin, et cetera. They'd really like one tool. That's partly why we've moved to sort of packaging CoCounsel gives you access to Westlaw and Practical Law and everything as sort of a, that, you know in old speak, a sort of single pane of glass that does everything for you. I think that's gonna play very much in our favor. You know, honestly, the change management right now is super early days, I would say, in these firms. A lot of where I'm spending time with them is to help them figure out how you do that, because it's not just about, you know, which tool you want to be using. They've got to think about their data and their integration and how that works. There's a lot of anxiety to Steve's point earlier on. They, you know, they can't afford to be wrong. Actually, one of the interesting discussions yesterday was, obviously they're getting GCs who are the general counsels that are obviously using many of these tools and then sending them wrong inputs to do their work. That's not great either. A lot of concern. You know, I think Steve mentioned many of our winning points earlier, but one I get involved with a lot is the security and privacy. You know, our customers can't afford for their data to end up in the wrong place, and they want to work with partners that can do that. Really think about how they put their whole integrated suite of products together in a way that's effective for them. A lot for them to do, and I think that's gonna be a multi-year journey. If, if I could just add, in our simplistic way of thinking about it, we have our legacy markets of content-enabled technology, so Westlaw in legal research, Practical Law, content around transactional areas of the law. The competitive dynamics there haven't changed a lot. It's a duopoly for the most part. LexisNexis is a strong number two in both categories. We're both innovating with AI. We think, you know, we think we're ahead there, we're seeing that drive growth as we drive upgrades to these new AI-enabled offerings. You've got another market which we think is a significant incremental new TAM white space for us. That's AI workflow solutions. There are more competitors there. We're one of the leaders in that. We've had strong growth in that market. The question for us is how much of that incremental TAM do we win, and then how impactful is it on our growth rates? We've been a leader to date, we think, with the next gen version of CoCounsel, which more powerfully, you know, uses our content for the AI to do more. That's our play as we execute to be a clear winner in that market going forward. Even if we're one of a handful of players playing there, it's a significant incremental growth opportunity. Yeah. -for us. That makes sense. You guys obviously gave us some user stats on CoCounsel recently, but, you know, obviously some of the legal tech competitors give us like an ARR number and growth rate. Anecdotally, any way to compare CoCounsel? Yeah, we haven't sort of come out with a precise number, as some of those companies have. Ours is in the same zip code. Okay. We're, you know, notwithstanding that the CoCounsel Legal that Gary Bisbee just mentioned is really the first time that we've harnessed the full power of our content sets and our expertise to train that agent, that CoCounsel agent. Notwithstanding that, we're at a million users. We're at an ARR that's similar to some of those players. We've made a good start and now watch us accelerate. I mean, I think two dynamics to add. One, you know, the main sort of fireside lobbing I got yesterday was people are hearing the beta's really good, and they wanna get on the beta. Obviously we're still in beta phase until the summer. The other thing is, you know, we're now solving about three times more problems. For many of our clients, they'll tell us, you know, "We love CoCounsel, but it doesn't do this and that and the other, and we'd like it to do more." The folks who are in the beta are now immediately going back and retesting those things they would hope it would do, and it didn't do them, and it does them all. You know, they're literally getting a sort of three X uplift on the things that it can do. We expect that to accelerate very quickly. I think in my day job, I'm gonna have a scalability challenge just to make sure we can go fast enough to keep up with demand. That's certainly what keeps me up at night at the moment. Got it. Outside of the workflow, the other debate, you know, like you said, I mean, you're in a basket and nobody listens to these hallucination stories that come out every day, which should help you. The other debate obviously is the data, right? Like, you know, you said 85% of it is- Yep. -is close to proprietary, fiduciary-grade. Can you just double-click on that? Yeah. Talk a little bit more about where the raw data comes. How do you get to 85%? Gary, do you wanna take that one? He and I have debated this over time, and I know it's near and dear to your heart. The first thing I'd say is we went in quite a bit of depth on our third quarter conference call in November. There are a couple of, I thought, reasonably compelling slides and five minutes of Steve's talk time on this. I'd point people to that to understand this. You know, we think there's a significant moat around Westlaw and our other content assets and I'd just make a couple of points. One, you know, a lot of the data is just not publicly available. When a, when a court issues a ruling, the judge will put out a summary judgment, effectively a summary of the outcome and what happened in the case. We get lots of other content briefs and other things from the courts and from other sources. There's also a bunch of it, like the docket information that's behind paywalls. The models, you know, can't. A competitor could buy those, but billions of pages, you know, at $0.10 a page, it's a significant cost. All the data we get is completely unstructured. We process more than 3,500 sources. We process more than 300 million documents a year into Westlaw, and there is a significant process, people, technology to standardize and be able to use that data. How you organize it is really key. We've got a ton of software tools that we've developed that are part of this. Things like the Key Number System, it's our taxonomy or indexing system. 140,000 legal matter deep, updated twice a year. Everything in Westlaw, from summaries to headnotes to citations, are all organized against that. That is a difficult thing to do, and it is why we can be both comprehensive and accurate, because it's all organized that way. Things like KeyCite, it checks your citations. It also tells you when a case has been overruled, and you need to know that, right? It's not just about, hey, a model can go find something online about some case that's relevant. Is that still valid law? A lot of those tools we have, to wind this down, and I've talked too long, are really key to the final step of anyone who does legal research, which is verifying the outcomes. That's incredibly key with an AI, you know, an AI output where they can make it up. We have the best tools around verification, and that is, you know, something that our customers, I think, really need. Steve alluded to this. There was a, you know, a very public, a couple of weeks ago, incident where a large law firm turned in a brief that had some hallucinations in it and, you know, The other side that found the hallucinations and showed them to the judge used Westlaw Edge. The other teams briefed into a tool we have in there called Litigation Document Analyzer. It said, "Here's the four mistakes." They turned it in. This is a great example of this fiduciary-grade AI. Really hard to do. We've spent a ton of time and effort, process technology, people to create not only the content, but the tools that deliver this. We think that would be incredibly difficult to replicate. The other debate within the data we get is like, you know, the relevance of the size of the firm and if they're doing transaction law versus case law, like how much of them really need this data. How do you approach that? Well, you know, law firms, I mean, you know, they're always looking for new clients and new growth opportunities, and they are prepared therefore to extend into new practice areas where they don't have necessarily a corpus of information in their own document management system or in the minds of their partners and associates. One of the things that we bring in both Westlaw on the litigation side, Practical Law on the transaction side, is a comprehensive across jurisdictions, across practice areas, robust up-to-date. Even if a firm is really deep in a particular area, chances are they're going to want to go elsewhere, and they want that source of truth. That's, you know, and there's a set of investments that we just continue to make. Got it. If we kind of moved a little bit into the corporate segment sticking to the legal side, like how do you think of the opportunity there? Yeah. With those? It's a great question because the sort of the heritage of Thomson Reuters legal professionals or legal business has been Westlaw, which is litigation, and that's in law firms predominantly. I mean, there are obviously general counsels who are in industries where there's a lot of litigation. By and large, the litigation practice tends to focus on the outside counsel. That's been the sort of heritage of the company. The opportunity with general counsels for us is, you know, we've been chipping away at it for a few years, but it is to a very large degree, wide space. What we're starting to see is general counsels who perhaps work with a CTO who's saying, "Okay," to Kirsty's earlier point, you know, let's use Copilot or let's use Gemini for various sort of aspects of knowledge work. The general counsel, and for that matter, the head of tax or head of internal audit, needs a specialist tool that ensures they're accurate. You know, they come to TR because we've already got a set of relationships with their corporation, particularly through the ONESOURCE suite. We think there's a pretty big opportunity for us to grow and become the leading provider of that workflow solution set to the general counsel, and in doing so, help them drive significant efficiency and effectiveness through both their in-house and external spend. Got it. That's helpful. Before we move to Tax and Accounting, just on the corporate side, you know, towards the end of last year, you talked about realignment in the sales and creating a little bit of a timing hiccup. Yeah. That's certainly done. Yeah. Basically what we did was we sort of moved more of our activity to a global accounts model, and in doing so, we upset sort of territory and quotas for a bunch of salespeople. We're now 12 months sort of through that, and we're starting to see that really settle down. We like the look of that. We've had some big wins amongst some of the marquee, you know, sort of Fortune 10 and Fortune 50, both in the general counsel's office and particularly in the indirect and e-invoicing space. Optimistic about the sort of rest of this year into next. Got it. You know, a lot of those basket traders are not giving legal a shot. They don't give Tax and Accounting a shot either. Can you just help us with what the moats there are and why that's going so nicely? I'll start, and I'm sure Gary and Kirsty will add. Essentially, we are, we're in, we're in duopolies in terms of the tax calculation engine space. As it pertains to serving tax accounting professionals, tax preparers, we and one other player have sort of a pretty equal shares in that space. When you go across to the serving the head of tax and the Big Four tax accounting firms, we're the largest provider of direct and indirect. Direct being income tax and indirect being sales, excise, VAT, and so forth. We made an acquisition a couple of years ago of the leading e-invoicing supplier. As e-invoicing mandates are rolled out by tax authorities across the world, we're seeing tremendous growth from that asset in Pagero. This is a space where the sort of moat, to use your term, is around the fact that these tools are extremely accurate. Like, we spend a lot of time and effort making sure that all of the input information is perfectly accurate. They are very cheap to run, and they're very efficient. There's not a lot of incentive for a head of tax between tax filing systems to go tear that tax calculation engine out and try something else, right? Because we've got the last seven or more years of data in that. You've got that sort of time series of tax return data. You've got a team that are used to using the system, and you've got all the interconnects to the IRS and the other tax authorities. It really is a bit like concrete. The opportunity for us is to add the agents in terms of sort of on the shoulders of that, so that the document ingestion is fully automated all the way through to the e-invoicing and the queues for advisory services. That's the Ready to Review proposition that we put in the marketplace earlier this year, and the Ready to Advise proposition we put in the marketplace last year in a series of CoCounsel agents that are around it. We think that's a deep and broad moat, and it gives us the ability to drive fundamental efficiencies throughout the tax preparer space by adding agents and automating some of the things that take a long time and candidly a sort of drudgery in terms of the work. Got it. It's also I'd add one thing to that, which is this concept of automation is key for this industry because the number of people coming out of university, in, with accounting degrees is down. The number of people sitting for the CPA exam is down by like a third in the last 15 years. This industry needs technology to do more. Number of returns goes up every year, number of audits goes up. The complexity of both is rising, yet head count is, in a best case, stable. That in some ways, the propensity to adopt new technology, including our AI offers, one could argue, is actually. Better. -in that industry than legal. Got it. Investors are often surprised when I tell them that the pricing in Tax and Accounting is firmly in the mid-single digits and more than legal. Yep. The counter is because of AI and solutions, there's going to be price deflation. How do you guys think of pricing in T&A and across? Well, you know, as I said, I think these tax calculation engines represent a very significant moat. You know, there's neither the incentive at the customer side to experiment with a new mousetrap, nor is it an easy thing to do. You know, it's not something that AI has sort of cracked the code on. I think our rate of innovation in adding the agentic capabilities ought to outpace sort of a, you know, any startups that look to get into that space. We think that there's both a pricing component, but also there's a quantity component in that if we play a larger role in that broad end-to-end tax prep process, that we're saving significant amounts of money for our customers and therefore with value-based pricing, we'll extract some of that. Got it. Think about the sort of the macros of what's going on, right? Whether you're a CPA or you're a corporate, basically now everyone's looking at it in roles like mine and saying, "Okay, I used to spend 100% or 95% of my cost on people and 5% on software. Now I'm gonna shift it." Actually, surprisingly, very little or very rarely does this come down to price. People are just making a different choice. They're not gonna hire as many people, they're just gonna spend more on software. I think that gives us a really nice sort of new market to sort of step into. It's quite a different dynamic to probably what we even saw 12 months ago. Got it. In terms of how people think about it. Kirsty, actually this time last year, I remember you saying you were more excited about some of the AI stuff going on in tax and accounting than in legal. What's the latest? Still hugely excited. I think as Steve described, you know, I think we've acquired all of the pieces that mean you can go from sort of that You know, we all pay taxes, right? We all know that lovely joy of how long it takes you to get everything together, right, the way through to filing. When you talk to CPAs, that's, a not where they have the most fun. It's also not where they make the most money. They want that process to be as effective and accurate as possible. They wanna get into the advisory side of the business, and that's why we launched the product Ready to Advise. They wanna be able to come back to you and say, "Look, Manav, you know, you're spending too much on this or that, and you could do these other things." There's an awful lot more revenue for them to pick up with those products. It's, again, a whole sort of brand new space for us where I think there's a ton of opportunity. That's what I get excited about. Got it. Maybe the last five minutes, if you can touch on capital allocation. I mean, we know the dividend, we know the buyback philosophy. We can touch on that later, too, if we have time. More on the M&A side, Steve. I mean, you generate a lot of cash flow. You have a lot of balance sheet flexibility, and you talked about $9 billion available capital. How has your thought process around M&A changed? You know, maybe a year or so ago you would consider buying a software company. I'm sure you're not doing that today. Just what should we think about the priorities there? I mean, as you said, we've got about $9 billion in dry powder, so that's the sort of cash on hand plus the additional leverage we can put on, plus the natural free cash flow generation of the business, which will hit $2.1 billion or so this year. And that affords us, I think, an advantage position in this environment where there's a dislocation in terms of the valuation of a bunch of businesses and I think a lot of uncertainty as to how this sort of AI environment will play out. We have, if you look over the last six years, we've been, I think, very disciplined. We haven't done any outsized deals. We have certainly, I don't think, Manav, done any head scratchers. We've basically stuck to the following criteria, which is let's focus on the big three. That's legal, tax, corporates. Let's look at products that are additive to the customer experience within that group. Products that are pristine in terms of the tech stack. We don't want to acquire tech debt. That typically means that they are AI-native products. Products that are of course accretive in terms of their financials to our shareholders, not just the AppZen shareholders. Last but not least, a culture that is additive to ours. That's not to say they need to look and feel like TR people, but we want to make sure that when the businesses come together, there will be, you know, a real focus on better serving our customers from the combined teams. If you look across the portfolio, Pagero, SafeSend, SurePrep, Additive, Materia, Noetica, these have been relatively small deals that have sort of pretty seamlessly plugged in. The playbook tends to be to buy those products and then push them through our distribution. I would expect, Manav, that we will continue to do those. You know, we've got a keen eye on valuations, just given the dislocation I described. We are open to doing something bigger. Again, you're not gonna see any head scratches from us. We're open to doing something bigger, but at the moment, I think there's still a difference in between the bid and the ask, particularly of those assets that are owned by private equity. You know, to the extent that sort of the world has changed in the public markets, there's still private equity firms. The multiple's still up here. You'll probably see us continue to do the sort of singles and doubles and be patient in looking at an opportunistic in terms of anything bigger. Gary, Kirsty, anything to add? No, I would agree with that. We'd like to do something somewhat bigger, but we don't have to because we have such strong underlying momentum. We can be patient. You know, I think we think that will work well. To your framing, I would say 1 thing. We just had an investment committee last week to discuss a bunch of things. The 1st question we ask now, what is the AI disruption risk? Because we don't want to take on more. Yeah. We need to make sure we understand that it has to be as durable as we see our existing franchises. Okay. Maybe just to wrap it up then, you know, $9 billion is a lot. You don't need all that for singles and doubles. You know, we always get the question, "Why don't they just lever up and buy back shares?" There are some considerations. Yeah. We're open-minded about it. I mean, we recently completed a $605 million return of capital, which is tax-deferred for the Canadian shareholders and we're a third of the way through a $600 million NCIB. When the board meets again in a month or so time, we'll sort of re-look at that. We could certainly do something bigger. Again, it's weighing up, you know, being opportunistic and focused in terms of the M&A versus returning to shareholders. Certainly at these share price levels, it's highly accretive. Fair enough. All right. Let's leave it there then. Thank you- Thanks very much. Gary and Kirsty for your time. Thank you, everybody.