PRTC

• Strategic vision: Refined strategy to translate innovation model into shareholder value, focusing on 4 pillars - streamlined structure, launch founded entities early, refined innovation focus, move to capital returns.
• Portfolio progress: 3 FDA-approved therapeutics, 1 billion+ cash flow from founded entities' monetization. Celea's deupirfenidone Phase IIb robust, Gallop's LYT-200 Phase Ib positive, Seaport's IPO progress. Cobenfy rights projected value. Legacy holdings as historical founded entities not current focus.
• Financial highlights: 2025 revenues, operating loss, net loss compared to prior year. Streamlined expenses post SLA fundraise planned.

• Cash runway: At least through end of 2028 inclusive of expected fundraisings.
• 2026 priorities: Advance SLA and Gallop operationally and financially, drive value from founded entities, progress innovation engine.
• Celea fundraising: Substantially complete with line of sight to completion by early Q3 2026, financing to support Phase III trial.
• Gallop: Engage with FDA on registration-enabling trial design for MDS, pursue third-party capital for MDS trial.

At PureTech level, ended 2025 with cash, cash equivalents and short-term instruments of $277.1 million vs $366.8 million in 2024. As of March 31, '26, unaudited cash and cash equivalents were $248.1 million. Consolidated cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments in 2025 were $277.3 million vs $367.3 million in 2024. Revenues mostly milestone-based and royalty-driven, $4.7 million in 2025 vs $4.8 million in 2024. Operating loss in 2025 was $98.5 million vs $136.1 million in 2024. Net loss in 2025 was $110.1 million vs net income of $27.8 million in 2024. Cobenfy rights projected to be ~$160 million through 2033. Celea's deupirfenidone in Phase IIb with Phase III ready, fundraising substantially complete. Gallop's LYT-200 Phase Ib data positive, prioritizing relapsed/refractory high-risk MDS. Seaport advanced 2 trials, filed IPO registration.

• Cobenfy sales: Any reduction in analyst forecast of early sales can materially impact inflows.
• Capital allocation: Uncertainties in completing fundraisings for Celea and Gallop, potential impact on runway and value creation.
• Therapeutic area competition: For MDS and other areas, competition may affect patient recruitment and commercial potential.

Q: Forgive me if some of the questions go over topics that you've already talked about, my line dropped a few times. But can I just double check on cash, firstly, I mean, it's a change in the guidance from into 2028 to the end of 2028. Can I just double check on two important points. Firstly, this is at least until the end of 2028, subject to further realization and that it's inclusive of any participation, I know as you said, in entity fundraising, but also specifically for Celea, where the trial cost might be slightly higher?

A: Yes, as indicated, we take a conservative approach in runway guidance, don't factor realizations, assume commitments into SLA and support for Gallop.

Q: Moving on to LYT-100 and Celea. I mean, obviously, the IPF landscape continues to evolve and heat up, suggesting more and more people are looking at it. But -- and clearly, your data today is great, but how are talks progressing with the funding partners? You said you've used the word substantially complete. But can you give us anything on the profile of this potential partner in the endeavor? Or in the earlier comments that we've just made about cash, I'm assuming that the majority of the kind of liability is going to be settled by the partner in this. If you can just give a bit more color, that would be really helpful.

A: Yes, we've made very substantial progress on fundraise, have clear line of sight to completion, majority capital from external partners, aligns with model of leveraging external capital.

Q: Just moving on to the other exciting bit of clinical data news Gallop Oncology. Eric, I think I caught you talking about the selection of MDS versus AML. And I very much understand that it was about capital. But could I also ask whether there's any read across from trials, whether it be TIBSOVO and this label extension when you were thinking about potential patient cohort size? And should we make any read across from that? I think it was 170-patient expansion from AML into MDS for TIBSOVO.

A: We're prioritizing MDS due to compelling clinical data, only one drug approved in relapsed/refractory population with TIBSOVO, creating need, less competition for patients in MDS.

Q: Lastly for me before I get back in the queue on Seaport, obviously, some more progress currently being made. Robert, can I just ask, I mean, obviously, the S-1 registration document suggested that you have, I think it was 42% or 43% versus the original 35% that was disclosed. Will you guys be thinking about taking a board seat post any IPO? And I mean, again, you talked about the 3% to 5% tiered royalties that you would have. Is that on all Glyph products on that potential platform or just those in the existing pipeline? Any color that you can give me on those topics would be great.

A: On Seaport IPO, general practice not to take board seats post IPO. Royalties beyond GLP application from developmental work at PureTech.

Q: Are you keen to hold a significant stake in Seaport beyond future funding rounds?

A: In hub-and-spoke model, typically start with 100% ownership, retain large equity stakes even after fundraisings. Benefits include not having to write ever-increasing checks, allowing founded entities to diversify shareholder registers for IPO.

Q: Just follow up then on the -- around the new asset formation, the concept stage. Just a bit more around that. I mean, is this sort of ballpark figure in terms of how much it costs to do those sort of concept stage assets? And then just to clarify, were you talking about new candidates on the candidate side, 2 assets, was that over a 3-year period? Or was that 2 assets per year? And then just finally, therapeutic areas of focus here. I mean, you've got a pretty broad spread in terms of your existing portfolio. Is that likely to continue fairly agnostic on therapeutic area? Or do you see some areas where you think are particularly of interest for those sort of new concept assets?

A: Can make significant progress with modest capital on concept stage. Looking at 2 developmental candidates over 3-year period. Focus in areas of historic success and strength like CNS, but therapeutic area agnostic.

Q: Thank you for the transparency on the runway to 2028. It's good that you don't pencil in any credency realizations in this guidance. Can you clarify how this runway might be impacted from a more rationalized group post Celea finance completion? Also, what monies have you set aside for funding some of these financing rounds as well?

A: Take conservative approach, don't assume realizations. Plan for cost reduction post Celea spinout, reserve for Celea and Gallop fundraisings, significant commitment into Celea, modest into Gallop.

Q: Should we be ascribing any value or realizations from Silica, Vedanta, Sunday, Elvio or Integra?

A: These are legacy holdings, continuing to support but not expecting material financial returns from them for modeling purposes.

Q: Can you outline your thinking on capital allocation, specifically in terms of where potential capital return sits in terms of your updated priorities?

A: Emphasis on capital returns, will return greater proportion of future cash generation to shareholders, exact form to be decided, but intention to return significant wins back to shareholders.