Hello everybody. Ladies and gentlemen, dear investors. Let me shortly introduce myself because we meet in many cases for the first time. My name is Dr. Maximilian Slawinski, and I am, since May, the new CEO of Canatu. I am part of the semiconductor, automotive and new energy industry since almost two decades. My first 100 days at Canatu have been progress, and they have just confirmed my hopes to join a company leading in one of the most emerging segments in the entire deep tech industry. We will present today, beside our H1 results, some remarkable achievements the company has been able to perform within the last 100 days. You most probably heard already yesterday about our great news of our recent reactor order from FST. The first since our SPAC, the first since almost three years, and most important, even ahead our new plan to target more than EUR 100 million revenue by 2030. We will furthermore present today our Polaris program. We published already our management reorganization, and I will go a little bit deeper into this today. We will present our new strategy towards targeting more than EUR 100 million revenue by 2030, based on a focused and fast execution in organically strong, growing and profitable markets. As well also presenting our vision for 2035. A third pillar of our Polaris program will explain our implemented cost measures, securing a disciplined cash management with a streamlined Canatu, including headcount adjustments. I believe that today's presented achievements are a testimony what the Canatu team is able to improve and transform in a short amount of time as a result of an energized team willing to win. I hope you will come to the same conclusion as me, experiencing this company just performing a pivotal moment for future success. Let's start. Where is Canatu already world-class? I think Canatu has proven already in the past that we are able to industrialize products and to mass manufacture them based on our dry deposition technology. I think good examples are the about 1 million sensors we delivered in the automotive and defense industry, as well as more than 5,000 inspection membranes, fault-free since 2021. This is a strong foundation. We also are short before entering new markets, promising strong growing new markets, in particular, of course, the CNT pellicle market as well as heaters for advanced ADAS systems. Canatu is very strong in industrializing the property tuning of CNTs, and this property tuning is resulting in physical properties responding to the most important challenges of the industries we are targeting. Last but not least, Canatu has established very deep and long-term relationships to global leading companies, which I have to say is in that magnitude remarkable for a company compared to Canatu's size. Here, the company is already world-class. Nevertheless, that is not enough and Canatu needs to improve. Canatu needs in particular to improve in the execution to hit its commercial ambitions. Therefore, we need to be more focused. We will present today a strategy reducing the complexity of our company, the complexity of our operations. We had in the past too many balls in the air and we have to catch the most valuable ones. We have to invest all our resources into scalable product roadmap execution instead of engineering projects. Canatu needs to be in future more customer-focused, and less research driven. Last but not least, the allocation of our development resources needs to be based more on commercial metrics. Therefore, we introduce the Polaris program, our transformation program of the company. We already published the changes in governance. We have now a five-people executive management team fully staffed from next week onwards. We recruited Bernd Meier as CMO and Walter Braun as CTO, two experienced international executives with a strong track record in our target industries. We changed the old new business development department more to a fellow office with a stronger focus on our IP strategy. We established new departments to support top line growth, in particular business development, to tackle the OEMs of our end markets as well as new product management functions in the business units to accelerate time to revenue, as well as focus stronger on productization. The project management will go back into R&D in the future. Last but not least, the business units will have the project ownership of our most important R&D projects. With respect to the strategy, we are clarifying our business models. The semiconductor business unit will remain a product business in the inspection product line. In the semiconductor manufacturing segment, so the bigger part of the TAM, we will focus to be an equipment and technology provider. The former automotive business unit, which is now the robotics, mobility, and defense business unit, will be a pure product business with a clear focus on strong, growing markets in automotive, robotics, and defense. The medical business unit remains a product business. We have prioritized on our roadmap based on the value we deliver. A strong indicator for this is the EUR per square centimeter value we introduced to evaluate the value our products deliver, and we stopped selling engineering services. In the OpEx adjustment, we are planning to reduce the headcount up to 17 full-time employees. We will limit our yearly CapEx until 2030 to less than EUR 6 million per year. We are introducing the revenue per employee in 2030 as a new KPI, and we will discontinue low-value R&D projects. In the first 100 days, we started to successfully sharpen our company, remaining, of course, an innovation leader and building a structurally high-margin business. We will focus in future stronger on scalable top-line growth. What remains is our commitment to achieve more than EUR 100 million in revenue by 2030, and we add the vision to grow with more than 20% per year CAGR until 2035. Let me shortly talk about our executive leadership team. This has been restructured. The company is now led by a five-people executive management team. We could add to the team Walter Braun and Bernd Meier, two very experienced executives from the semiconductor equipment, semiconductor device, and robotics industry. I strongly believe that their experience, their track record, and their management skills will improve the company significantly. I also strongly believe that the newly introduced matrix structure within Canatu will increase our resource allocation and resource efficiency and our product and business focus. The business units will, in future, be internal customers within the company, in particular, owning the business cases and the business unit strategies, while the operational leadership will sustain the executive management and the business unit leaders in their daily work. What remains is, of course, our core. Canatu's DNA is a dry deposition technology. It is a strong competitive mode. As mentioned, we have proven already in the past, with about 1 million sensors delivered in the automotive and defense market, as well as more than 5,000 inspection membranes, that we are able to industrialize and produce products, differentiating products based on that technology. Along the three business units, we work in different business models, including manufacturing partners, enabling us to integrate up to OEM level. Our backbone remains our strong patent portfolio, where we will even more aggressively grow the number of patents and families in the future as a backbone also enabling us to commercialize, of course, royalties and fees in the future. Our three business units are tackling from different directions, I would say, very hot markets in our society. For sure, the most discussed market and maybe also the most interesting market is the artificial intelligence market. As you know, artificial intelligence is not working without memories, GPUs, and CPUs. Our pellicle technology is a big part manufacturing these devices and boosting the manufacturing these devices in the future. When we think about humanoid robots, we also have to talk about actors and sensors, and we are pretty fast at LiDAR and other solutions, as well as tactile sensors. This is an example when you include humanoid AI, how two different business units at Canatu tackle the same end market. A similar situation we have in autonomous driving. We talk a lot about the ADAS, ETAS, but of course an autonomous car needs also memories, GPUs, and CPUs. Also here, again, two business units are part of the same end market with different positions in the supply chain. We do successful business already today in the defense market, and we target to expand this. Also here, beside our RMD business unit, GPUs and memories will be important in future defense solutions, and Canatu is, of course, targeting to be part of the semiconductor manufacturing industry. Last but not least, medical diagnostics. Here we are even integrating up to a full solution provider. Again, semiconductors will help in the analysis of diagnostics and improving its efficiency. So, it shows our business units deliver from different perspectives to the most important end markets of society without increasing the complexity of Canatu. Let me shortly explain the just mentioned discipline portfolio prioritization. I mentioned in the beginning that we allocate in future our development resources, in particular with respect to commercial indicators. Here you see an example how we will prioritize in future our product roadmap. You see that we fully focus on the highest CNT per square centimeter value we identified for our most promising products, and on the other side, also focus strongly on high growing end markets. As you can see, extreme high value we expect to deliver in the hormone testing market as well we already proved to deliver in inspection filters. While in the RMD market, we have even a wider portfolio, a wider end market spectrum, and extremely organically strong growing markets, in particular, when we think about robotics and industrial sensing. About our markets. I know it has been already evaluated a lot of times, and here I want to highlight, first of all, the semiconductor market. On the right side you see the advanced node market starting from 7 nanometer and below in the structure. You see that the 2 nanometer and below segment is just a minority part today, but it will dominate the advanced node market in the future. Here, in particular, is a strong opportunity for CNT pellicles, as these structures demand High NA, high voltage, and more number of layers in the manufacturing. A small market today, but with 25% CAGR along the next 10 years, a very, very strong market in that segment in the future, underlining our growth ambitions not only until 2030, but even until 2035. A similar picture for the autonomous driving market. The ADAS market is already big today but dominated by ADAS level 1 and 2. Just starting is ADAS level 3 and 4. While our heater solutions might be an add up in ADAS level 1 and 2, they become a crucial aspect to increase the safety of ADAS level 3 and beyond. Again, we talk about a segment growing with almost 20% CAGR in the next 10 years. Again, underlining the just mentioned long-term growth ambition. How does this strategy translate into shareholder value? We just drafted here the most important milestones. We already achieved in the past important milestones in the RMD and semiconductor segment, and we just achieved another very important milestone yesterday with our third reactor order to be achieved. Of course, the next important step in the semiconductor industry will be the qualification of the pellicles at the device site. That will be the moment the dry deposition technology, the CNTs based on the Canatu technology, will enter the end market. This we will have to achieve with our customers as a next big step. In the medical business, we will pretty soon start the FDA pathway. Of course, in the RMD business, we will finish the development of the ADAS heaters and will in particular roll them out in the most autonomous car driving systems. With that, I will hand over now to Mikko for deeper dive into the financials. Thank you, Max. Let's talk with the financial highlights of the first half. Our revenue was EUR 4.2 million, which is a low number that we acknowledge. But at the same time, we want to emphasize that our long-term potential and our long-term pipeline, they are intact. We did not lose any business to our competitors during the first half, and our competitive position remains as very strong. Secondly, our gross margin remains on a good level, and this we take as evidence of inherently good profitability of our business. We just need to scale up the revenue. Thirdly, what we want to emphasize is our strong balance sheet. It's debt-free. Our cash position remains good, and these are very valuable assets in the growth phase and in the industries, we are operating. In connection with the strategy work, what Max just described, we also updated our financial targets. We continue to aim at more than EUR 500 million in revenue in 2030. But given the markets where we are operating, we are confident that if we reach this, we should target also a high continued growth thereafter. Therefore, we have a target of reaching a minimum of 20% CAGR from 2030 to 2035. Additionally, given the decisions what we made during the service process, i.e., that we will operate with the reactor model in the EUV pellicle business, and that we will focus on scalable product businesses elsewhere, we are confident that we can make this growth happen in a very resource and capital efficient way. That means that we are targeting to reach average revenue per employee of over EUR 400,000 in 2030. We do see that this can be done with less than EUR 6 million of average annual CapEx from next year onwards. This year, like we have previously also said, will be a peak year of CapEx for Canatu. We currently see that the CapEx this year will be maximum EUR 13 million, so less than before anticipated. This is also a reflection of the change in our strategy. The reason why we are peaking this year is the investments in the second factory and in the EUV pellicle scanner, which are exceptional investments for a company like Canatu. Let's dive a bit deeper into the first half figures. Semiconductor revenue was EUR 4.0 million. That was a result of lack of new reactor orders. But like yesterday announced, now we were able to close one new order, very big and important milestone. The second big factor there behind this semicon revenue was one major inspection membrane customer who was working down their high inventory levels. Our position in inspection membranes, competitive position remains unchanged, very strong. We expect that the demand for these membranes will pick up again once the inventory levels get back to normal level. This is also a reflection of a fact that our product has been better than anticipated. It has a longer lifetime than what we originally expected and the customer expected. In robotics, medical, and diagnostics, our revenue in the first half was EUR 3.6 million, and that was mostly a result of completed engineering projects. There we had a potential to make even higher revenue, but due to this decision to refocus our resources to the areas and efforts which we believe will create most shareholder value in the longer term, we did not continue some projects there, and that's kind of a short-term pain, what we were trading for longer term gains. Margins, gross margins remained good, although they decreased year-on-year basis, but that was a reflection of changes in the revenue mix. In terms of profitability potential of these different businesses, there are no changes. Everything remains good. That said, operating expenses did continue to grow in the first half, and that was driven mostly by continued headcount growth. Now, like Max told, we are taking measures also on that front. At the same time, we also increased our investments in the R&D activity, especially on the medical side. These new premises, meaning new factory, also brought some new costs to our P&L. Investments, like I said, were high in first half and will be high in this year, but mostly they are now done. First half investments capital expenditure amounted to EUR 10.5 million. With these investments, we have significantly expanded our capacity and also increased our quality control capabilities in a very meaningful way. Balance sheet cash position remains strong, as I said. About the outlook this year, like we yesterday published a pre-information in connection with this reactor order. Despite the reactor order, we do see that this year revenue will decline significantly compared to the previous year, i.e., in 2025, EUR 15.6 million back then. Long-term potential remains intact in all business areas. This decline this year is a factor or result of things progressing. Of course, not everything is in our hand. It depends some things on our customers and further on their customers. That is beyond our control. Obviously, we need to improve our own execution as well. That is what Max already highlighted. Further, like said, we have made some conscious decisions that we do not continue certain businesses and certain operations, and that will bring some short-term pain this year. I think that is from the finance. Now I hand over back to Max to conclude. Yes. To conclude, we presented today our Polaris program, and the Polaris program includes 12 major changes we implemented in the last 100 days within our company. This will be a foundation for the future success I strongly believe in. The company will focus even more on profitable top-line growth, underlined by the newly introduced CMO department. On the other side, we will improve our R&D execution efficiency with the CTO department as project management lead and the business unit as project owners. With these measures, I am confident that Canatu will succeed in building a EUR 100 million-plus revenue company by 2030, with a vision to reach levels up to EUR 300 million by 2035, based on the just mentioned 20%-plus CAGR from 2030 onwards. Thank you a lot. Now it is time for questions, so from the audience. Hi, it is Atte Riikola from Inderes. Maybe first about the discontinued businesses and operations. Can you open up a little bit what business have been now discontinued, and what was their revenue impact, for example, last year? The businesses we discontinued, a part of the businesses were engagements where we sold a kind of engineering hours. So, a project-based business where really permanently our engineers had to execute together with the partners paying for it. But of course, that had a lot of opportunity costs. And these engineers could not focus on accelerating on the product roadmap execution. We stopped that activity to be in time or even faster with finishing our product developments and being able to hand them over properly in our manufacturing, as we were not so optimistic about the scalability of that approach. About the financial impact, I leave it to Mikko. Yes, like you see and like said, the RMD business, that is where most of these activities reside, these stopped activities. It grew still in first half very well with these engineering projects. But obviously, the revenue mix in there will be different going forward. All right. Now we know the FST reactor order has come in, but how about this another reactor customer, and the SAT approvals are still ongoing. Can you say anything about the situation, how it is developing at the moment? Of course, it's not fully in our hands, and at the end, it's part of a bigger supply chain beyond Canatu to have that final approval. We also have to consider that due to the high loading situation, the semiconductor device part, the resources to engineer new technologies are very limited at the moment because a bigger part of the industry is on executing its order book. That's typically not always the best time to implement new technologies. Nevertheless, in the 100 days I've been here, I've seen reasonable progress in that, making me optimistic about that we will conclude that in a reasonable amount of time. What kind of expectations do you have for the two FST reactors when those are going to start to generate meaningful recurring revenue for Canatu? First of all, when a customer orders a secondary reactor, that's a strong sign. That's really a commitment. It makes a big difference from my point of view if a customer is just having one reactor. Obviously, that is already a strong indicator for the progress our partner FST is doing in that segment. At the end, of course, again, it depends on their customer with respect to the reoccurring revenue. But from my point of view, that is then a matter of time. But that they already expanding now in their manufacturing capacity at the end is, of course, a very good indicator. And obviously, there is a strong confidence at FST on a pretty soon market introduction underlined by that order. How do you see the use of CNT pellicles in low NA productions? You were mentioning that 2 nanometer is the most important one. For me, there is a triangular. You have the wattage of the EUV light source, you have the numerical aperture, and you also have to think about the numbers of layers per wafer. There are different ways to realize advanced structures. We have to take into account that it is also technically possible, for example, with a significantly larger amount of layers per wafer to have, even in today's standard technologies with normal numerical apertures and lower wattage, these advanced structures. At the end, what the Canatu technology or what the CNT pellicles do is improving the manufacturing yield, which, for example, would be also important when you have more layers under today's numerical apertures, because the yield costs become higher when the number of layers increase. What CNT compared to compounds is advanced is the nature of being a pure carbon material. At the end, the atomic structure of CNT is similar to diamond, and that's the most robust material on that planet. That is, of course, the promise of CNT to be an optically, and from the robustness, advanced solutions to today's pellicle standards, metal silicides. As it is with the change of standards in the semiconductor industry, when you look in the past, it's typically about a decade. You talk, and it's not happening overnight, but if it's happening and if it's proving, it goes pretty fast. There are many examples in the past, for example, like the switch from deep to EUV, by the way. When you look how long ASML worked on EUV until it finally became a business, that were almost three decades, if I'm not wrong. Of course, that patience is always needed when you're in the semiconductor business. Of course, a second reactor order from a customer, this is a very big commitment, and the company seems to be very confident. Your competitors have also announced some pellicle production of their own. How do you see Canatu's competitive position has developed this year? With the second reactor order from FST, good. That there are more companies working on CNT is first of all good. That's in the Canatu interest that not one company from Finland, but a bigger amount of companies is working on the same material class, CNT. Compared to our competitors, I think, in particular in tuning the properties which finally result in the optics and reliability, our dry deposition technology is pretty advanced. I think we have here a strong technological mode. You now don't give any more long-term EBIT margin target as previously, but can you say anything about your ambition level if you go to the long term? Is it similar kind of profitability that you were targeting before, or is it higher or lower? Yeah. I think what we want to say that at this point of the growth trajectory, we need to focus on the revenue growth. That's the key thing. Our business remains very profitable, as evidenced by the gross margins. If we just are able to scale the top line, this will be a highly profitable company. There's no doubt about that. Also, I think you can use this new target of reaching 400,000 EUR revenue per employee as kind of also an indication of our profitability, because that's quite a direct proxy of our cost base, this number of employees. All right. Thank you. Hi, Waltteri Rossi from Danske Bank. Thanks for the presentations. A few questions as well. First, you state quite clearly, I think, that you focus now on selling reactors only in the semi segment. What led you to choosing this route compared to the previous dual track? I think for Canatu, it is favorable, and also for its customers, if we choose a path and if we choose a business model increasing the likelihood, making the dry deposition the standard CNT manufacturing technology. With that decision, we are more or less opening via our reactor technology and the IP behind a global access to this. In the alternative scenario, we would be more or less, if we were to do pellicles, we would be somehow a competitor of some companies, which are now in this business model will become potential customers. With that, I am pretty sure we increase the likelihood to make our technology a standard in this. Our business model, so a combination of reactor sales and then, of course, reoccurring revenues, I think will pay off if it is a standard in particular, and it is the basis for that decision. Of course, it also requires less CapEx, no doubt about that. Okay, thank you. Kind of relating to that, do you know if your competitors, are they all selling directly, basically, pellicles, or are some of them selling reactors? I wouldn't know a reactor supplier producing membranes for pellicles. I think the companies I have met are integrated up to the pellicle level. Okay. Thank you. Then also a question on the second customer, and why they haven't accepted the reactor yet. Basically, is there something wrong or something that they're not happy with, the customer? Or are they just not going to accept it until they need it? What's your read on the situation? As mentioned, first of all, each customer has different resources investing into a qualification of a new technology. In particular, if a customer is busy in its operation, as an order book is extremely large, that can easily prolong these kinds of processes. No doubt about our reactor technology is pretty new in the industry, and there's a lot to learn also via our customers, which then needs to be addressed, and together with the customers, to be achieved with respect to the parameter output. But I'm very confident, as mentioned, that this will finally succeed. It's only a matter of time. Okay. Thank you. And one last question, at least for now. Was there any recurring revenues in H1? What is your expectation on the recurring revenues going forward compared to the reactor price? And how much are you selling the reactors for now? There was many questions in one. The recurring revenues, what I think you are referring to, what we get from reactors, they are still in the future in the big time. Of course, we are getting some recurring revenues from when we are selling services and some consumables to these reactors. But of course, the big thing will be then when these are taken into mass production, these pellicles. What was the other? How much are you selling the reactors for? That we still do not disclose. Good afternoon, it is Matti Riikonen, DNB Carnegie. Couple of questions also from me. First, I would like to return to the question which has been discussed already, which is the site acceptance test for the second sold reactor. You said that you have made yourself some progress towards getting it accepted. What exactly have you achieved and what have you done? These site acceptance tests are of course at a customer site. Yourself means of course where the reactor is. These are connected to a list of parameters which have to be achieved, where we made progress. We could make a mark on some parameters which were not solved before. Is there anything on your side that still needs to be done? Have you completed your part of the work that you can do in this timeframe? Of course, these set criteria are the output of an equipment. What the equipment puts out depends a lot where it is standing, for example, in which clean room, under which conditions, and how it is operated. At the end, all these criteria are a result of a combined work. I think it is pretty, in these set criteria, hard to say, to isolate this is a pure responsibility of Canatu or pure responsibility of its customer. It is always a joint effort. All right. If it is a joint effort, and you are basically ready to do your part and have done so in the process, does it mean that the customer just do not feel the urgency to go through with the site acceptance test because there is no pressure for them to get the production running? Mm-hmm. When we think about what the pellicles in general are for, they are at the end improving the yield of an already existing manufacturing. That means there is, for example, not a hard time-wise milestone, where with a change to a new technology, you could not start to produce it without pellicles, for example, independent if it is metal silicides or CNT. It is not that the pellicle itself is the enabler to achieve, let us say, 2 nanometer. What it is doing, it is increasing the manufacturing output. I can understand, also from my experience in semiconductor device companies, when you ramp up a new generation with the lowest possible complexity, for example, maybe leaving out pellicles in total in the beginning, then working in the second step on improving the yield. Yes, the customers have the option to decide on their own when they use pellicles or when they switch from one to the other pellicle technology. It will not change the device generation manufactured. That is good and bad for us. There is no hard deadline on the one side and also no pressure on the other side. That is true. Generally, I think that is positive that there is no time-wise killer criterion when to reach it. Of course, every day you are working with the technology, achieving a lower yield, you have a competitive disadvantage, because in the device industry at the moment, everything is about manufacturing output, that is what a yield improvement does. I would believe those who manage to use CNT pellicles technology and finally achieve a better yield, have a significant competitive advantage, more profit, and more revenue, that is what the GPU memory, in particular memory, GPU, and CPU industry is at the moment all about. There is a very good business case for better yields. In the risk statements related to the delivery of the second reactor and reactors altogether, you say that there will be a penalty if you do not meet your part of the agreement and the reactor does not perform according to the standards that you have specified in the sales agreement. Based on your discussion now, it seems that that is not the case. The only reason that is holding up the site acceptance test that the customer does not have the resources enough to make it actually productive. So get it into the production, which signals that there is not such a great hurry to increase production of those pellicles that would be used in the production. Is there any other excuse for this to take longer than It has been almost two years now since you delivered the reactor. Is it just not interesting for the customer to get it up and running because there is no need for the pellicles? Two years are, of course, in the semiconductor industry, depending what you talk about, even a normal timeframe. I worked, for example, many years in the silicon carbide industry and the device development, and that, which was also fundamentally change, was typically for platform development, never lower than three years. The hurry is, what the pressure comes from the misbalance between demand and supply. There is far more demand in the device industry than supply. Everybody has pressure to increase output. There are different ways to address it. For sure, the fastest way to increase supply is improving the yield. No doubt about semiconductor manufacturing process is extremely sensitive and a long manufacturing chain. Every change, even if it looks tiny, this is a risk. What I can understand is that there are a lot of measures undertaken and tests undertaken before implementing a new technology, including the pellicles. Because worst thing what could happen is if you have even one week, an issue with your lithography tool. In particular with the order book pressure, I can understand the customers being careful. Nevertheless, just the third reactor order is a statement from the industry. When we look at the physics, when we compare to today's standard material, the compounds, it is a big promise on improving the yields, in particular when we reflect that also to the device roadmaps. We will in future have far more wafer starts in the area of 2 nanometer and below, that will result in higher wattage, higher numerical aperture, and also more layer starts. In all aspects, we talk about yield being more critical, the robustness of pellicles being an even more important factor, and also, of course, the manufacturing output in total. These are promising trends. All right. One of the questions before related to the consumable revenue. I think you said that you didn't record any consumable reactor revenue in the first half. Was that correct? Not in the big time. Yeah. So basically, even if FST has already one reactor ready to produce, they didn't, and therefore you felt, or there was no need to deliver more consumables to them. Doesn't that suggest as well that there is no such a great hurry to get the production running even from the first reactor? Of course, you already explained that in the case of the second reactor, there doesn't seem to be a great hurry to even get the site acceptance test. Or how otherwise would you interpret the situation that the production is not starting in any significant volumes, even from the first customer with whom basically everything has been cleared for production? Mm-hmm. What the customers of FST do is only a speculation we can do. But why, for example, pellicle material, why end customers are careful in changing a pellicle material is due to the sensitivity of the device manufacturing supply chain. I think the fact that we received from FST yesterday, the second reactor order underlines their confidence and obviously also is related to a forecast from FST requiring a capacity expansion. Otherwise, that reactor order wouldn't have come. In particular for the case of FST, I think just yesterday's milestone shows that there is obviously from our customer point of view, more demand insight that they needed to place a second and a further order, and that it is a matter of time, and not so much a question, but more a matter of time, when then the pellicles will be at the device manufacturers and then also reoccurring revenues for Canatu will be monetized. All right. In your report, you mentioned that you made some progress in EUV inspection products. What kind of progress did you actually make? Our today's product are inspection membranes. We identified in that inspection area, opportunities to increase our share of BOM of their total inspection system. Without being able to disclose here too much details, but there are more use cases than only this membrane use case in that area where we can expand the business. All right. If you say that your testing membranes lasted better or longer in customers' use, does that mean that you are also getting a price increase next time you are selling to them because your product actually has proven that it works longer? We can, of course, not disclose here price negotiation, but it has definitely proven that the value of what we delivered was higher than anticipated. All right. Now, when you talk about your CapEx, you limit it to EUR 6 million on an annual basis, except for this year. Does that mean that you are not planning to build a new factory? So you think that the two factories, the second one ready soon this year, would be enough for your production also going forward? It implies that it is what we have in manufacturing infrastructure today is sufficient to achieve our 2030 target. So of course, we still have a CapEx plan. It is not zero. But of course, it is also a consequence out of saying for the pellicle market, we are an equipment business. This is, of course, having a far lower CapEx than when you would say you do the pellicles by your own. That is one result of that. Yes, also the allocation of doing only products with a higher euro per square centimeter value has, of course, an impact on the revenue achievable than the manufacturing line. When I say I will only develop and manufacture in our today's factories products with a high or higher euro per square centimeter value, automatically the achievable revenue with the installed capacity rises. That is also a point of that, and a result of having not a demand for extremely high CapEx in the next four years, let's say. All right. What does that mean in practice? What part of your production is now having a lower price per square centimeter so that you would have the opportunity to reduce some production and increase the higher value per square centimeter production? We had- I don't quite understand it. What is the low value adding part that you want to get rid of? We had products on the roadmap which we were in development, which would eat up a lot of capacity without achieving a lot of revenue. Without going into detailed customer projects, of course it makes a big difference, for example, if you have some square centimeters of a hormone detection sensor, or if you deposit carbon nanotube on several square meters in markets which are also partly commoditizing. These depositing CNTs on extremely large areas without having the visibility that these markets would value that with reasonably high prices, this we stopped. That, of course, was in a former manufacturing plant still part of which would have resulted in more CapEx. All right. Then finally, you have now downgraded your long-term targets for the second time within a year. What makes you think that your current estimates for the future would be any more realistic than the two previous ones have been? So why should we now believe that even the numbers that you are showing today net sales target EUR 100 million by 2030 would be realistic and achievable, because already within a year you have changed those long-term targets twice. Yeah. Regarding the revenue target of reaching EUR 100 million or more, it is very close to what we had in the spring, or what we said in the spring. Why we made a slight change, it used to be like EUR 100 million to EUR 150 million. That reflects these changes what we made in the strategy that we focus on in this reactor-based model and these scalable product businesses. What we have been stating now several times and again this time that the long-term potential is unchanged. We do not see that change is there. We do not see a big change in the revenue target. What increased yesterday the confidence on the plan is that the reactor order we received yesterday came even timewise ahead of the plan. Finally, if you are so confident on the EUR 100 million target in 2030, which is a long time forward, why don't you give annual revenue targets or a range just to guide investors and analysts that the estimates would be even roughly correct? Why can you be so certain of the long term if you are not certain enough to give information to capital markets on the short term? Well, I think we've been discussing this today as well, that there are things which are not in our control. They depend on our customers and how they go forward. So, timing remains a short-term risk. In long term, we think that the kind of risk, in a way, is on a substantially lower level. Like Max said, it's less of a question of if but when this happens. That's why we are confident. But we don't want to put fingers in each year that this is how it goes, because that is not fully in our hand. Then also, we need to preserve our negotiation position towards our customers, that we don't set too explicit targets which can then be counterproductive. Yeah, but if you give a range for net sales for short term, and you make it wide enough, then it includes all the possibilities that you must have in numbers in your business plan. So why is it so difficult to guide the markets? Because I think the benefit of that would be that you wouldn't need to come with the massive profit warning in the middle of the year just to reset all estimates that have been produced that far. So, I think the policy that you're running now is clearly more harmful to you as any kind of guidance giving exercise would be if the guidance range is wide enough to basically meet all roughly potential outcomes. Yeah. We have not given a profit warning. We gave yesterday a pre-information about the profit and the outlook for this year, and it's kind of like I said, it will decline. It was not a profit warning. I want to clear that. You might say a lot of technical things, but it was actually a profit warning in the true meaning of the case, so that you let the markets know that current estimates are way higher than what you foresee for this year. Regardless of what you call it was a really bad profit warning. Feedback taken. Waltteri Rossi from Danske Bank. One additional question. About modeling the revenues until 2030. Would you say it still makes sense to try to model it based on number of reactors sold, or should we put more weight on recurring elements? Roughly, what would you say is the split between these reactors, hardware sales, and recurring revenues in 2030? The majority of the planned revenues will be reoccurring. Either they are products or royalties and fees. It will be, let's say, not reactor. What also is important, in this plan, until 2030, we have cumulative sold minimum 10 reactors. Meaning seven more to go. On the other side, this is an exponential curve, and I would be very happy if every time I am 100 days in a company, we achieve such a milestone. This is, of course, very important. But the model includes to have minimum 10 reactors sold until 2030 and to have a majority of non-reactor sales revenue. What would that mean? Then, of course, when you have a less dependent on reactor sales, it is less volatility. That is automatically leading to a less volatile revenue trajectory and with that also, an easier visibility than you have today. This is pretty clear. It's easier to forecast a product business than an equipment business. Just to make sure I heard correctly. 2030, more than 50% of sales would be recurring already at that point? Would be not reactor business. A product or let's say a license or royalties or fees revenue, yes. By the way, is this semiconductors or all segments? Overall, Canatu in total. Then reactors including all of these three? Yes. Okay. Thank you. You are welcome. Atte Riikola from Inderes. One last question. We have now talked lots about your two existing reactor clients, but how is the sales pipeline for new customers developing? Naya good. The perspective has opened with our decision to say, "Okay, we are equipment company." I think that makes Canatu, of course, now very interesting in the EUV pellicle market for those who might have seen us before today as potential competitors. Let's say the opportunity widens with that. That's a starting point, and then there's a way to go to have a design in, design win, and orders. Sure. Overall, on the potential customer base, in particular for the semiconductor business, that is an improvement. For the RMD business, as the renaming implies, we are not seeing this anymore on the long term as a purely automotive business. Automotive is for sure a big market and a market where we have a lot of experience and have already product successfully sold. But in particular, when we talk about the robotics market, that is a very promising market for Canatu. Why? Because when you see our solutions are part of the solutions we have, which are part of the sensing or acting. When you compare to other tier 2 and tier 1 companies, they do also now a new go-to market with former automotive products, and we are following that logic as well. Also in Europe, the robotics market is, other than the automotive market, an organically strongly growing market. What the automotive market is, when you see the number of cars, it's always between 80 million and 100 million. It's in itself not really strongly growing, which leads to the fact that you have then this transformational growth like in EV. Then like in EV at the moment, you suddenly have a commoditized situation with a stronger price competition. By widening our perspective to robotics and defense, we are expecting to be positioned in markets which are not that price sensitive, also not on the long run, as they are organically far stronger and far longer growing, in particular the robotics market. When you see the forecast for humanoid robots, relatively optimistic forecasts are saying in 10 years from now, it may be a factor of 10 bigger than the number of cars. When you then see the bill of materials of these robots for sensors, it's almost equal to the car, and that is a super interesting market for Canatu. Thank you. Thank you. I think we are done with time. Thank you for the very good questions. I was checking all the questions, what we got online, and most of them at least were covered already here by the audience. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you a lot also from my side. Let's hope for further success in the future. Thank you for your trust.