HYFT

Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us today for MindWalk Holdings Corp. third quarter fiscal year 2026 earnings call. MindWalk Holdings Corp. trades on the Nasdaq under the ticker HYFT. Today's call will be led by our Chief Executive Officer, Jennifer Lynne Bath, and our Chief Financial Officer, Richard Areglado. A copy of our financial statements and MD&A is available on our website at mindwalkai.com. A replay of today's call will be available on MindWalk Holdings Corp.'s investor relations website following the conclusion of today's call. Before we begin, please note that today's discussion includes forward-looking statements. These statements are based on current expectations and involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially. For more information, please refer to our filings with the SEC and Canadian securities regulators, including our most recent Form 20-F. Unless otherwise noted, all financial figures discussed today are in Canadian dollars. I will now turn the call over to Jennifer Lynne Bath. You may begin.

Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. This quarter, MindWalk Holdings Corp. reported its third consecutive year-over-year revenue increase and advanced three pipeline programs toward data readouts. In addition, we recently signed our first one-year enterprise Lens AI platform contract. I will walk you through each of those. On revenue, year over year, we have grown three quarters in a row in a market where pharmaceutical demand for AI-driven discovery is accelerating. On the commercial model, our largest enterprise AI client recently signed a one-year Lens AI platform contract, the first of its kind for us, shifting a part of our revenue from project-based to contracted and recurring. On our pipeline, dengue, GLP-1, and influenza each have data anticipated in the near term. Please let me take those in turn. MindWalk Holdings Corp. just reported its third consecutive quarter of year-over-year revenue growth. Revenue was $4,200,000 this quarter, a 52% increase from $2,700,000 in the same quarter last year. MindWalk Holdings Corp.'s U.S. revenue, our most important commercial market, doubled year over year. That growth reflects a deliberate strategic focus on the U.S. market. North America is where AI-driven discovery demand is concentrated and where the regulatory environment is actively pulling pharma toward domestic partners. We have invested in U.S. commercial presence, including business development and sales resources in the Boston and Cambridge area. Separately, we have also established biologics services operations in the Boston and Cambridge area. Both reflect the same strategic direction. Our clients are pharmaceutical and biotech organizations with their own R&D capabilities. They engage us when the challenge exceeds what conventional tools can address. Which brings me to the second thing I would like to highlight. Recently, our largest enterprise AI client signed a one-year Lens AI platform contract. This contract is structured as a recurring revenue model, revenues being recognized monthly. To be precise about why this matters, until now, our revenue has been primarily project-based. Clients engage us for a program, we deliver, we invoice. That model produces good revenue, but it requires continuous reselling; every quarter starts close to zero. A platform contract is structurally different. It is contracted, recurring, monthly revenue that does not require reselling. It delivers value consistently, which is exactly what Lens AI is designed to do. Lens AI is actively being rolled out across our broader client base, the one-year contract is one we are scaling. Now let's discuss specifically what Lens AI, powered by HIFT technology, demonstrated this quarter. At its foundation is HIFT, our patented biological representation system that operates on the invariant functional layer of the sequence space. Sequence-based AI tools identify patterns in surface similarity. HIFT, conversely, operates on functional architecture, the layer that governs what the molecule does, not just what it looks like. Lens AI puts that capability into practice, integrated across our laboratory operations, now connecting in silico insight directly to bench-level execution. When our scientists design experiments, they identify targets, and they interpret results. That capability runs through the process end to end. Two results this quarter illustrate what that means. First, we advanced our functional adjacency capability, the ability to identify molecules that produce the same therapeutic effect despite having very low sequence similarity. For a pharma partner, this means that Lens AI can detect competitive threats and IP collision risks that conventional sequence analysis would not find. IP protection on this capability has been initiated. Second, in our influenza program, Lens AI has now screened over 2,000 highly diverse influenza sequences spanning influenza A, influenza B, avian, and swine origin sequences. Across all sequences analyzed, HIFT identified a single conserved functional feature that is present in every single one, a conserved functional feature that represents a potential design target for a broadly protective immunogen. For MindWalk Holdings Corp., dengue is proof of concept; influenza is repeatability. Now our pipeline advancements. Dengue infects 390 million people annually. The WHO considers it a top 10 global health threat. After 60 years of research and billions of dollars of investment, the world still does not have a vaccine that reliably protects against all four serotypes without risk of making the disease worse. Two vaccines have reached the market. Neither solved the core problem. Sanofi's Dengvaxia was restricted in 2017 after it was found to increase severe dengue risk in seronegative patients through antibody-dependent enhancement, also known as ADE, and was permanently discontinued in Brazil this year. The vaccine effectively stimulated a primary infection in seronegative recipients, priming them for enhanced disease on subsequent natural exposure. Takeda's Qdenga showed a different failure mode. It demonstrated no efficacy against serotype 3 in seronegative individuals, and remained skewed toward dengue 2. Takeda withdrew its FDA application in 2023. You see, the problem is not generating an immune response. Both of those vaccines do that. The problem is generating a balanced response across multiple serotypes. An imbalanced response triggers ADE, and that makes the patient sicker. The two vaccines that have reached the market both took a tetravalent approach and hoped the immune system would respond equally, but it does not. Across all sequences analyzed, HIFT identified a single conserved functional constraint present in every single dengue sequence, a potential basis for a broadly protective immunogen design. This is a discontinuous epitope; it is invisible to conventional sequence alignment tools. HIFT found it because it operates at the level of functional biological architecture, not surface sequence similarity. Instead of asking the immune system to respond equally to multiple different things, we are training it to recognize one thing that is present in all serotypes. Balanced immunity is built into the design, not hoped for in the final outcome. Currently, rabbit immunization studies for this program are complete. Binding confirmation, which is confirming that the immunized animals generated antibodies that bound to that conserved epitope, is expected yet this week. Upon confirmation, we move to multiserotype neutralization tests with our independent collaborator. No prior program has demonstrated a single epitope immunogen generating neutralizing antibodies across all serotypes that it was immunized for. This is what neutralization data will first test. We are at this preclinical stage, but the hardest scientific questions actually get answered here. In vitro GLP-1 receptor activation was confirmed by an independent third-party assay. Results demonstrate activity relative to semaglutide, a market-leading GLP-1 therapy. We have worked with a pharma collaborator with recognized expertise in this area. They have shared what they consider important to see as this program advances. We are developing the program with that input in mind. Beyond the GLP-1 pathway itself, we have identified a dual regimen linking GLP-1 biology to a second nonoverlapping longevity pathway. We will continue to update the market as this program advances. Our influenza program is advancing on the same design logic. As of this week, we are moving toward manufacturing of the lead in silico candidate. We will update the market as that program continues to develop. U.S. revenue doubled year over year, a direct result of our deliberate strategic focus on North America. AI-driven biologics demand is concentrated in this market, and the regulatory environment is increasingly favorable to domestic partners. We have established biologic services operations in the Boston–Cambridge area, and this strategic direction guided our decision to divest our European operations in favor of North American growth. We ended Q3 with $14,200,000 in cash. The Netherlands divestiture proceeds are being deployed deliberately into commercial growth, Lens AI and its pipeline assets, and our Canadian laboratory capabilities. Our team published a peer-reviewed study in Biomacromolecules, the American Chemical Society journal, in collaboration with Eindhoven University of Technology and Radboud University Medical Center. That work was grant funded and it demonstrates what our wet lab nanobody discovery is capable of and the great importance of this innovation. I will come back to this when I describe our B Cell LAMA platform launch. This quarter, we announced results from a client-driven research engagement in which our scientists generated and validated monoclonal antibodies and intrabodies capable of selectively targeting misfolded, pathogenic TDP-43 while leaving healthy TDP-43 intact. TDP-43 is implicated in ALS, frontotemporal dementia, and some Alzheimer's cases. Last week, we announced the launch of our B Cell LAMA, a nanobody discovery platform built on single B cell isolation from immunized llamas. Let me explain why this matters. Bispecific and multispecific antibodies require two heavy chains, and when those chains need two different light chains, the result is an explosion of possible combinations, only one of which is the product that you actually want. That chain-pairing problem has been one of the central engineering bottlenecks limiting bispecific drug development, and significant capital has been invested in platforms designed to work around it. VHH nanobodies eliminate the problem by design. They carry no light chain; there is no pairing ambiguity. And because they come from a naturally matured llama immune repertoire, they capture sequence diversity that engineered platforms structurally cannot replicate. Our peer-reviewed Biomacromolecules publication demonstrates what that produces. The molecule with the strongest binding affinity in our delivered zero functional activity. A construct built from the same nanobody building blocks achieved 10 to 25 times greater potency in multivalent format. Function-based selection, not affinity, is what matters. That is what B Cell LAMA is designed to deliver. MindWalk Holdings Corp. holds commercial rights to the jointly developed intellectual property from that work. B Cell LAMA operates alongside our 15 molecules advanced to the clinic. The full detail is in last week's announcement. Across our proprietary asset portfolio—GLP-1, dengue, and influenza—and at the request of investors, we are working with legal and financial advisers to design structured asset-level financing vehicles that will allow investors to participate at the program level while preserving parent company equity. Network is active and progressing. I will now turn the call over to Richard.

Thank you, Jennifer, and good morning, everyone. As a note, all figures are in Canadian dollars and relate to continuing operations unless stated otherwise. Revenue for Q3 was $4,200,000, a 52% increase from $2,700,000 in Q3 of last year. As Jennifer noted, this is our third consecutive quarter of year-over-year revenue growth. U.S. revenue doubled year over year, $2,600,000 versus $1,300,000. The U.S. is named a strategic priority. AI-driven discovery demand is concentrated here, and our commercial investments are reflected in the numbers. For the nine-month period ending January 31, 2026, our revenue was $11,400,000 as compared to $7,900,000, a 45% increase as compared to the prior year period. Gross margin for the three months ended January 31, 2026 was 59% as compared to 65% in the prior year period. For the nine-month period ended January 31, 2026, gross margin was 58% as compared to 53%, a five percentage point improvement over the same period last year. Gross margin can vary depending on our mix of business. However, as we develop and increase adoption of the tools within our Lens AI platform, we would expect margins to expand. Moving on to operating expenses. For Q3 2026, R&D expense was $1,200,000 as compared to $900,000 for the prior year period due to the investments in the dengue, GLP-1, and B Cell LAMA programs and ongoing Lens AI platform development. For the nine-month period ended January 31, 2026, R&D expense was $3,500,000 versus $3,400,000 in the prior year. Sales and marketing for the three-month period ended January 31, 2026 was $1,800,000 as compared to $1,100,000 in the same period last year, reflecting our continued commercial expansion primarily in the U.S., with programs such as our expansion in the Boston area starting to yield revenue. For the nine-month period ended January 2026, sales and marketing expense was $4,300,000 compared to $2,700,000 for the nine months ended January 2025. G&A was $3,100,000 for Q3 2026 as compared to $2,800,000 for Q3 2025. G&A expense was $9,500,000 for the nine months ended January 2026 as compared to $9,100,000 for the prior year period. We expect G&A to remain flat to modest growth as we believe we have the infrastructure to support future growth. Net loss from continuing operations for Q3 2026 was $3,900,000 versus $22,000,000 in Q3 2025. Net loss in the prior year period included an impairment charge of $21,200,000. For the nine-month period ended January 2026, net loss was $11,200,000 as compared to $29,700,000 for the nine-month period ended January 2025, which also reflected the $21,200,000 charge. We are investing ahead of revenue in commercial infrastructure, pipeline programs, and platform capabilities with the expectation that these investments will yield returns. Moving on to the balance sheet. We ended the third quarter with $14,200,000 in cash. Cash used in operations was $10.1 million year to date, consistent with our planned investments. In summary, revenue has grown year over year, and we have demonstrated the ability to execute. We have developed a platform and products that bring value to our customers, and we continue to innovate with programs such as our recent announcement of our B Cell LAMA capability and functional adjacency. We have cash runway for operations and a capital structure to support the ongoing development of our proprietary pipeline assets. We believe this will continue to drive shareholder value. I will now return the call to Jennifer.

Thank you, Richard. Before we open for questions, I would like to leave you with this. Most AI approaches in biologics today operate on full biological sequences. They tokenize, they train, they generate. Many are powerful, and they are operating on a representation of biology that includes a great deal of noise. Evolution is a tolerant process. Most positions in a biological sequence can change without consequence. That variation fills the public databases that these models train on. A much smaller set of subsequences is invariant. They cannot change because essential biological function depends on them. These are the fingerprints that actually carry the information for life. HIFT is our patented representation of that invariant layer. No other company has the rights to use these patterns. That is the foundation of a durable competitive position because every result we generate, every insight we deliver, and every asset we build rests on a biological foundation that competitors cannot replicate. And it is producing results. We identified the dengue epitope conserved across all four serotypes, a target that 60 years of vaccinology did not find. We detected functional adjacency that sequence-based platforms missed and initiated IP protection on that capability. We screened over 2,000 influenza sequences and found a single conserved biological feature present in every single one. Our GLP-1 candidate activity relative to semaglutide, the market-leading GLP-1 therapy, was confirmed by an independent third party in vitro testing. We launched B Cell LAMA, a nanobody platform anchored by peer-reviewed evidence that function-based candidate selection outperforms affinity-based selection at the molecular level. On commercial, we are scaling the enterprise platform model, additional contracted recurring platform agreements with major pharma and biotech partners building a revenue base that grows independently of any single project. On pipeline, dengue neutralization data is our nearest-term pipeline readout. Dengue is proof of concept for what HIFT can do. Influenza is repeatability. Together, they make the platform case to pharma partners better than anything else that we could say. On asset financing, legal and financial advisers are engaged and structures are being designed across the proprietary portfolio. Before we open for questions, I want to leave you with this. The science is patented. The results are peer reviewed. The first enterprise contract is signed. The pipeline has meaningful data approaching. These three consecutive quarters of year-over-year revenue growth and U.S. revenue doubling are made possible by a platform that no competitors can replicate. This is the MindWalk Holdings Corp. investment case. Thank you. We will now open the line for questions.

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. To ask a question, please press star then the number one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question at any time, please press star 1 again. Please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Swayampakula Ramakanth with H.C. Wainwright. Your line is open.

Thank you. This is RK from H.C. Wainwright. Good morning, Jennifer, Richard. Good morning. This is a great quarter, a lot of good stuff, and really exciting days for you. Thank you. Jennifer or Richard, in terms of the agreement that you just signed—the enterprise client agreement that you just signed on the recurring contract—I am trying to understand what drove this group to do this. What are the primary drivers? And then the second part of that same question is, how many of your other project-based clients are willing to convert into this monthly recurring model, let us say over the next six to 12 months?

Thank you, RK, and thanks for joining, and as usual, for your thoughtful questions. So your first question—what really drove this first pharma client to go ahead and sign this contract—that is a very good question. I think I like this in particular because giving me the opportunity to explain this also gives me the opportunity to demonstrate the validation that needed to occur before a client took this type of a commitment long term with us. I do believe this is a client I have referred to anecdotally historically one or two times, and this is a client who initially came to us having tried multiple other companies that said that they could utilize artificial intelligence to help solve some of their scientific challenges. The group was relatively dismayed. They said that in reality, none of those CRO partners or companies were able to turn back results that were as good as what they could do in the wet lab, and so they were apprehensive and they were doubtful. So when we first brought this group in, it was actually for fee-for-service work, and what we said to them is, you have programs that have been extremely difficult and you have worked on for over a decade. Let us take a crack at it. Let us apply Lens AI to it, and if we are not successful, then you do not pay us. But we really want to show you what we can do. We worked on that program for them, and we were successful, and they saw the outputs coming directly from Lens AI, and even some applications that MindWalk Holdings Corp. in Belgium, also known as BioStrand, built specifically for producing these outcomes in the program. They were tremendously happy with the results, and they have now contracted us, I am not sure, somewhere between seven to 10 times in total for different programs, and Lens AI has continued to successfully solve very challenging problems for them. That is really where we earned their respect and, I think, their trust for this Lens AI program, and that is what really brought them to the table to negotiate a platform license as a SaaS model. Our intent, obviously, is to leverage that experience with them to be able to bring on additional clients, for those clients to understand, and for us also to be able to share the positive experiences this group has had. That being said, for your second question, we are not providing specific numbers or timelines for additional contracts, but one thing that I think is really important to highlight and maybe was not highlighted enough in the earnings call is that Lens AI is now actively being rolled out across our broader client base. All the programs we are working on—not just the programs we are working on in Belgium where Lens AI lives, but also in Canada with all of our wet lab clients—somewhere close to 750 active clients, dozens of programs running at any given time, those results are all now finally coming back in the Lens AI portal. These groups are receiving secure login, and when they log in, they have access to this portal, and they can see the applications that are in there that truly change the way they have done drug discovery historically. Now they can utilize these applications, and instead of going to three, four, five, six other vendors to collect information, or chugging through the process over the course of 18 months to two years, they can literally take a subscription to utilize these applications beyond the base level to harness the power and get the results that they are looking for. Being at that point in this venture is very important to our company, something we have built toward and worked toward. It took longer than we hoped it would to get this software into the hands of these clients, and it is now happening not just across our therapeutic clients but clients who have contracted us for any sort of custom antibody work. With regard to that, when we think about additional contracts and bringing these new clients in, that is where we are really focused. We feel we have an extremely unique situation where these clients are already onboarded. We are in many cases their primary vendor, but in all cases, we are a vendor that is in their system, and we have already built their trust and their respect, and so we have a very unique segue into this market with those clients.

Thanks for that detailed answer. And if I may, second question is on the asset-level financing. I do understand lawyers and investors can take a long time to come to a conclusion about anything, but how much of that are you waiting for in terms of these four different projects or platforms that you have—thinking about the dengue, the GLP-1, LAMA, and influenza as well? Do you need to get to a conclusion with these groups before you move this forward, or are these all independent of each other and they are all moving forward?

That is a great question. The short answer is they are independent of one another as they move forward. A couple of things to keep in mind. When we look at financing these particular programs, one of the things that is easy to overlook is the fact that our program costs are not what you would expect from a traditional drug development company at this stage. Much of our work is in silico, but also much of our in silico work, our in vitro work, and even our preclinical work is either AI-driven or it is conducted in-house. That keeps our cost meaningfully lower than a conventional pipeline of this breadth would require, and it is also one of the structural advantages that we have building on the HIFT platform. As a result of that—and directly in reference to your question, RK—the capital that we currently have is capital that is enough to drive us significantly forward in these engagements. As a matter of fact, as was detailed by Richard, the R&D expenses are not up significantly over last year and yet cover not only our traditional R&D and the build-out of the B Cell LAMA platform, but also cover everything we have done to date here. That gives you, I think, a specific example of that. Now, when it comes to the asset-level financing, that is something that definitely, as these programs become more advanced, one of the things that we have ensured we have in place as we move forward is a professional team that has the experience in the clinical realm and the subject matter experience, with each of these families of viruses or the particular therapeutic or disease that we are targeting, in order to help drive this process along through the preclinical portion and the IND-enabling, the IND filing, and the clinical readiness. When we get to those stages, of course, the cost then does begin to increase. As to whether or not these portions at that stage can move forward prior to the asset-level financing, to some extent, yes, most definitely, once again because we do have a team set forward here with the internal expertise. But in addition to that, the asset-level financing is meant to support once we get to that stage. We have enough runway here that the lead time that it takes to actually get these ring-fenced should be one that enables us to bring in additional capital to support those by that time.

Thank you. I will get back into the queue. Thanks.

Thanks, RK.

Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. We will now turn the call back over to Jennifer Lynne Bath for closing remarks.

Great. Thank you so much. The biggest thing that I want to say is thank you all. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for supporting MindWalk Holdings Corp. We look forward to sharing pipeline results as they become available, and we will speak with all of you on our Q4 and fiscal year-end 2026 earnings call. Thank you.

This concludes today's MindWalk Holdings Corp. Q3 fiscal year 2026 earnings call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for joining us today for MindWalk's Second Quarter Fiscal 2026 Earnings Call. We appreciate your time and interest in MindWalk, formerly ImmunoPrecise Antibodies. Today's call will be led by our CEO, Dr. Jennifer Bath and our CFO, Scott Areglado. They will provide a review of our financial performance, strategic initiatives and key operational highlights for the second quarter. A copy of today's presentation, along with our final financial statements and MD&A is available on our website. Before we begin, I'd like to remind everyone that today's discussion will include forward-looking statements. These statements are based on current expectations and assumptions and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. Factors that could results, include among others, global political and economic conditions, changes in the market dynamics, competitive developments and other business risks. Unless otherwise noted, all financial figures discussed today are in Canadian dollars. These statements are made as of today, and MindWalk undertakes no obligation to update them, except as required by law. For a more detailed discussion of risks and uncertainties, please refer to our filings with the SEC and Canadian securities regulators, including our most recent Form 20-F and other periodic reports. I would now like to turn the call over to MindWalk's President and CEO, Dr. Jennifer Bath.

Thank you, Regina. Good morning everyone. Before i discuss our quarter, marked by strong financial performance, I want to frame where AI and biology stands today and how our strategy has built momentum over time. In the second quarter fiscal year 2026, that momentum translated into progress across our platform, internal programs and corporate structure, delivering 54% year-over-year revenue growth, a 94% increase in gross profit to $2.7 million and an increase to 65% gross margin for continuing operations. Across pharma and biotech, AI now sits near the center of pipeline strategy and R&D planning. Recent surveys show AI in active use at scale with roughly 2/3 of life science professionals using AI in 2024, up from just over half the prior year and a large majority of pharma and biotech organizations applying AI in at least one development program. In parallel, data volumes continue to accelerate. Global data creation is estimated at roughly 180 zettabytes in 2025, with genomics among the fastest-growing contributors and genomics data capacity already measured in tens of exabytes. Data generation now runs ahead of the world's ability to extract stable biological signals and convert them into actionable decisions. Investments reflect this shift. Independent market analyses point to sustained double-digit annual growth for AI-enabled R&D platforms, including AI-driven drug discovery, informatics software, cloud-based infrastructure and life science analytics. Large pharma, major technology firms and specialized platforms are all expanding AI capacity. Once an organization secures an advantage in data quality, model design and biological grounding, that advantage compounds. Those that fall too far behind risk structural disadvantages in cost, speed and technical success that are difficult to overcome. Only a limited number of platforms are likely to secure durable leadership. MindWalk was built deliberately for this environment, and we believe it is positioned within that small group. Our starting point is BioNative AI, which respects how biology encodes information. Evolution introduces mutations across genomes. Many positions in a sequence tolerate change. That degeneracy creates the diversity and code complexity that fills public databases and drives the large data volumes that others train on. A smaller subset of subsequences remains immutable over evolutionary time because essential biochemical functions depend on those anchor points. HYFT patterns are our patented representation of these immutable subsequence codes or molecular fingerprints. In LensAI, HYFT patterns are the units of biological meaning. They are the immutable subsequences discontinuous in the primary sequence that link sequence to structure and function and create a stable informational layer that remains while the surrounding sequence drips. These -- those encoded patterns are linked across more than 25 billion biological relations. That subsequence layer allows LensAI to harmonize sequence, structure, omics and literature into a single computational space. Conventional sequence and language models operate on full strings and tokens without a dedicated representation for these subsequence codes. HYFT keeps computation focused on the conserved patterns that carry the information for life rather than on the tolerated variation around them. These patterns are patented assets owned by MindWalk, and no other company has the rights to use these patterns. This patented pattern layer is a core strategic asset that differentiates MindWalk from other AI approaches in biologics. The same logic guides how we look at infectious organisms. Instead of starting from historical antigen lists or broad sequence homology, LensAI scans pathogen proteomes for strict HYFT patterns with specific biochemical properties, unique or highly enriched for a given organism, conserved across relevant strains or serotypes and suitable for intervention based on structure and context. This gives us a starting point grounded in pattern level evidence rather than legacy assumptions about which viral proteins should matter. This view of biology also drives our strategy. Over the past year, we aligned the company with this BioNative AI thesis. On this call, I will focus on how second quarter performance fits into this strategic frame. We divested noncore wet lab operations in the Netherlands, which did not integrate tightly with LensAI or the HYFT layer. This transaction generated approximately $14.3 million in net proceeds, strengthened our balance sheet and removed a capital-intensive footprint that did not advance our BioNative AI direction. We brought ImmunoPrecise Antibodies, BioStrand and Talem under a single identity as MindWalk with HYFT as our NASDAQ ticker. Our external identity now reflects one integrated architecture centered on software, data and selected lab capabilities rather than a collection of regional service operations. Our MD&A describes this in detail. First, this quarter, we advanced our GLP1 and longevity programs. Using LensAI, our team designed GLP1 receptor agonists with third-party validated in vitro assay receptor activation above semaglutide. HYFT patterns were used to identify subsequent families encoding receptor engagement and favorable biophysical properties rather than iterating on historical GLP1 analogs. Importantly, LensAI did not hand us hundreds of undifferentiated hits. The platform applies strict HYFT criteria to identify a single best scoring design or a clearly defined shortlist for each objective. That precision allows us to focus experimental resources on candidates where the pattern level evidence is strongest rather than spending time and capital triaging broad hit list where no clear frontrunner exists. During the quarter, we applied the same pattern-led approach to a second pathway linked to cellular resistance and aspects of aging biology. We used HYFT analysis to define strict HYFT patterns set in this pathway and to evaluate intervention options that align with our safety and development standards. The result is a dual pathway therapeutic concept that targets metabolic control and health span mechanisms in parallel. Current work focuses on IND enablement, including pharmacokinetic and toxicology study design and preparation for external in vivo collaborations. Second, our dengue vaccine initiative continued to move forward and is a clear example of pathogen-specific HYFT logic. LensAI previously identified a highly conserved biochemical pattern across all 4 dengue virus serotypes using strict pattern criteria. The selection did not start from legacy dengue immunogens nor homology to other flaviviruses. We focused on HYFT pattern sets with biochemical properties unique to dengue, immutable across the serotypes analyzed and distinct from host patterns. The goal is to support neutralizing antibody responses while reducing the risk of serotype bias. During the quarter, we advanced preclinical planning, including assay strategy, manufacturing readiness steps and collaborator engagement for upcoming immunogenicity and neutralization work. Across both GLP1 and dengue programs, our strategy is to build and protect assets with robust IP and then align them with strategic capital partners who can drive them forward at scale. To facilitate this, we are working with Walkers Global to establish a segregated portfolio structure in the Cayman Islands. Under this model, each AI-generated asset will be housed in its own segregated portfolio, so investors can participate directly at the asset level, while MindWalk Holdings Corp retains control of the platform. This framework allows us to advance multiple programs in parallel with clear governance over risk, capital and ownership. We believe the depth of opportunity within these HYFT defined assets is substantial. This path creates clear routes to capital through structured partnerships, licensing and potential nondilutive funding tied to specific programs while we remain disciplined in protecting shareholder value and avoiding unnecessary dilution. Third, we expanded validation of LensAI with partners, including an antidrug antibody risk assessment. HYFT patterns and concept-driven NLP bring sequence structural features and literature into one view so teams can see how specific pattern families relate to known immunogenicity concerns. Interest here reflects a broader market need for earlier explainable risk signals rather than late surprises in development. On the corporate side, we continue to build the leadership required for software-led bio-native AI business. We appointed Scott Areglado as Chief Financial Officer. Scott brings experience in technology growth, capital markets and disciplined planning. His role is to align investment in the platform and internal programs with balanced capital allocation and the flexibility we want for future strategic options. In addition, we appointed Dr. Thomas Lynch as Chief Business Officer. Tom leads global commercialization for LensAI, including enterprise engagements and data onboarding. His experience with complex technology platforms and large customers supports our focus on SaaS, usage-based compute and co-development structures. Lastly, we have completed the corporate rebranding to MindWalk and the transition to HYFT NASDAQ ticker. Our communications investor materials and client messaging now aligns with the patented HYFT technology, which resides at the heart of our platform. Taken together, these developments reflect a clear position in an AI market that is moving quickly. We are not trying to follow every AI theme. We are focused on building and scaling one BioNative AI architecture grounded in evolution shapes subsequence patterns and protected by our HYFT patents, which supports partner programs and internal assets such as GLP1 and dengue. We believe this focus positions MindWalk within a small group of companies defining how AI transforms life science data analysis and is applied to biologics, supported by a diversified economic engine spanning services and advancing asset portfolio, SaaS offerings and strategic partnerships. With that context, I will now turn the call over to our CFO, Scott Areglado, for a review of our financial performance for the quarter.

Thank you, Jennifer, and good morning, everyone. I'm excited to have joined MineWalk at this important time in the evolution of our BioNative AI platform. Before I begin, please note that all numbers presented today are in Canadian dollars. For comparability, the financial results I will discuss exclude revenue and expenses associated with the [ OS and Utrecht ] operations that were divested, so you could see a true like-for-like view of our continuing business. Revenue for the second quarter was $4.1 million, an increase of 54% year-over-year and 30% sequentially, driven primarily by improved project revenue and better utilization. This represents record quarterly revenue for the company from our continuing operations. Gross profit for the quarter was $2.7 million, representing a 65% gross margin compared to $1.4 million or a 51% margin in the same period last year. The 94% year-over-year increase in gross profit and 1,400 basis point expansion in margin were driven primarily by increased operating leverage on fixed costs and cost of sales and a mix of higher-margin work. Operating expenses for the quarter were $5.4 million, up slightly from the same period last year. The increase reflects higher R&D investment, modest growth in sales and marketing activity and ongoing expansion of our general and administrative infrastructure to support scaling. These increases were partially offset by approximately $500,000 of amortization expense recorded in the prior year, but not in this quarter. Consistent with our strategy, we expect operating expenses to remain focused on advancing our platform, strengthening commercial capabilities and supporting long-term growth drivers. Operating loss, excluding amortization and nonrecurring items, improved to $2.8 million compared to $4.1 million last year. Adjusted EBITDA loss improved to $2.4 million versus $2.6 million in the prior year period. Pretax loss for the second quarter was $3.2 million compared to $4.3 million last year. This loss includes a noncash charge of $0.5 million related to the divestiture of our Netherlands facilities. Net loss from continuing operations was $3.2 million versus $2.6 million in the same period last year, driven by the divestiture-related impact and $24,000 tax expense compared to a $994,000 tax credit in the prior year period. Turning to the balance sheet. We ended the quarter with $16.5 million in cash, which includes proceeds from the divestiture completed during the quarter. This strengthened liquidity position provides meaningful flexibility to execute our strategy, expanding the HYFT-powered platform, investing in our infrastructure and developing assets such as our GLP1 and dengue vaccine initiatives. In summary, we delivered strong revenue growth, expanded margins and improved underlying operating performance while significantly bolstering our balance sheet. We are executing with discipline and continuing to invest where it matters most for long-term value creation. I'll now turn the call back to the operator for Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question will come from the line of Swayampakula Ramakanth with H.C. Wainwright.

A few questions from me. The structured portfolio seems like an interesting way to set up ring-fences around certain assets. But at the same time, I have a couple of questions on that part. I know you'll give more details later, but at a high level, at this point, what can you tell investors why this is a great thing for current shareholders? And what sort of protections would be placed so that current shareholders dilution would be prevented for them when obviously, the third party is interested in specific programs?

Sure. Thank you, RK. I'm happy to take that question. So first of all, we're setting up a Cayman segregated portfolio structure because it allows each AI-generated platform or program to be housed within its own portfolio. So this way, investors can invest directly in specific assets without diluting equity in the parent company. So I'm also addressing a little bit of your second question, while the IP for each program is ring-fenced and protected. So we've engaged Walkers law firm to help finalize the legal framework covering trust for our patents, and this is the patents on the specific assets, governance for each portfolio and then all of the necessary regulatory considerations before we invite investors in. As alluded to, there are already investors who have an interest in investing directly in those portfolio assets, but this is not equity within MindWalk Holdings Corp. This is investment specifically in the assets that are housed within this structure. This gives us the flexibility to fund programs individually, maintain strong IP protection and where appropriate, spin the assets out for transaction in the future. So it makes it a sustainable structure for us to invest directly in those assets and also ease any particular regulatory components of future sponsorship of those assets as they continue to move forward. So this structure in and of itself actually also answers the second question with regard to it directly being a way to protect existing investors against dilution because it is an alternative funding mechanism as opposed to accepting capital that results in dilution of MindWalk Holdings Corp.

Okay. Then in terms of -- so what sort of detail would you be able to give us during the J.P. Morgan investor conference day that you want -- what sort of details would we expect around this?

Well, first and foremost, there will be updates at the J.P. Morgan conference around the assets themselves. For legal reasons, we need to be careful about the timing of when that sort of information is released as well as what specifically is released in order to ensure that we protect our patent rights and IP portfolio. And so the timing of that ends up getting governed by a number of different factors regarding when and what we specifically release. Around the actual structure -- so first, maybe also helpful to step back and say I wouldn't think of the structure as anything different than what Talem is. Talem is actually a structure meant to how segregated IP portfolios and that's why our current assets sit within the Talem structure. The only main difference here is that Cayman offers a structure that enables us to not only provide significant protection around these assets, but because so much of the interest in the investment in these portfolios is actually coming geographically from that region, it also creates a beneficial structure that enables deployment of that capital to support these programs. We -- what we will be able to share is going to be completely dictated based on exactly where that process is. And so what is actually set in stone versus what is still being negotiated and legally planned.

Okay. In terms of the operations itself, obviously, your gross margin expanded impressively during the recent quarter. So what does it tell us in terms of what sort of projects you're taking upon these days? And also, should we assume the mid-60s as the range for -- not only for the rest of the year, but also in the next couple of years?

Fair question. So what it tells us about the types of programs we're taking on, one of the things that we mentioned in the call is kind of fixed costs associated with some of our programs. So as programs actually expand in their dollar value, what we see is that many of the operating costs are not obviously expanding proportionately. And one of the trends that we did see over the last quarter is a significant increase in the individual cost of programs. And so that definitely supported that 65% profit margin and gives you a little bit of insight into the fact that the types of programs have different in the sense that they're scalable programs that have more fixed operating costs. Do we expect that to be our gross profit margin going forward even into the more extended future? We believe that our gross profit margin -- well, first of all, yes, we're very satisfied with it, and we do expect that we can maintain this gross profit margin. But going forward, out 9 months, 12 months, 18 months, do we expect that to be our plateaued gross profit margin? No. We do expect some increases to continue in that time frame regarding the balance of more scalable programs with fixed costs.

Okay. And then regarding the use of proceeds from the Netherlands divestiture of about $14 million or so. At a high level, where are you spending or where are you placing that money in, in terms of your AI projects or you're trying to develop your footprint within the U.S. How should we think where the spend is happening from...

Okay. I think, obviously, we're pleased that we were able to strengthen the balance sheet in a nondilutive fashion. And I expect we'll continue to invest in commercial initiatives that grow the footprint of our -- of LensAI as well as our Canadian lab operations and then investments in R&D to continue to develop assets and continue to develop the features and the functionality of LensAI as well.

Okay. One last question from me. Along with Scott, you also brought in Dr. Lynch. So what's the mandate for Dr. Lynch? And how should we think about what sort of the business development projects that would be coming up from his desk?

Yes. Fair question. So the mandate that Tom has is actually quite directly related to the deployment of capital question you had. As we've mentioned, our large focus we have is on the scalability of our SaaS model and also the data management deployment supporting that SaaS model. Tom has been tasked with a number of different things. One is obviously the integration of that software and the assurance that, that software has a level of scalability and usefulness within the industry that we're staying on top of exactly what is needed, how it will be deployed, how it will be scaled and optimizing our costs around that infrastructure. And so again, relating back to your previous question, that's also where quite a bit of our investment is. Another component is we haven't had a centralized head of sales. We actually -- if you go back over the last 12, 24, 36 months, you can see we're operating with very little in terms of the sales team and very little of any business development team. We have had a lot of our focus on building internally and preparing for the deployment of our SaaS model. I alluded to at the end of the last call that we had brought in a large pharmaceutical company on a 12-month recurring -- monthly recurring revenue SaaS model subscription. And the reason for that is we have really reached the point where that it is not only deployable, but has a number of applications that allow people to go directly to SaaS model software with an API instead of using other outsourced vendors. And so another big focus for Tom is to create a global unified sales team, one where internal sales, external sales, project management and then also business development teams are built, trained, aligned to analyze our existing KPIs that are in place to modify that if necessary and to hold those teams accountable for hitting our goals. So a lot of that is certainly around SaaS model deployment. Some of it is also around fee-for-service work within LensAI and then the integration of that also, the continued integration within the services that are offered within Canada.

And our next question comes from the line of Gary Purpura with Liberty Capital Investments.

More a point of clarification. I read that your company has been buying back shares of stock, which is great. But yet on November 15, you showed a potential public offering of $30 million worth of common stock. Is that the case? Or could you give some clarification to that?

Sure. So first of all, to clarify the first comment, we actually did not announce that we have been buying shares back. We simply announced that as one of many tools within our toolbox, we do have the ability to do it. And so along with that, there are significant controls that would dictate whether we would ever do that and under what circumstances, but we have not done that to date. And then what was registered with regard to the potential for raising capital was the $30 million allocated as potential use for the at-the-market facility or the ATM. So we did not enter into any sort of fundraising or official roadshow or any sort of CMPO or attempt to actually go out and raise capital. We just have the ATM there, should we ever decide to draw on the ATM. Of course, I do want to link this to one of RK's questions around capital deployment and use of proceeds and our intent because there's a number of directions with our internal assets we could go with regard to capital deployment. Certainly, one of them would be to use our own capital to expand those. One would be to take on partnerships, partnerships with laboratories or other maybe in vivo animal preclinical groups that would support that research. And that is actually an area where we have received interest, and we have a number of partners aligned that would like to do that. That typically requires us to give up a significant amount of equity in the asset as per a standard partnership agreement, oftentimes 40% to 50%, but the total amount being based on the amount of work that gets done by the partner. So going back to the concept of now that we had a number of groups step up and say, you know what, we are interested in actually deploying capital directly into the asset to ensure that asset moves forward with speed to take a chunk of equity in that asset because we're very interested in the potential of that asset and therefore, enabling you to not have to raise capital to not have to lean in for large dollars into that ATM to not have to dilute the company, but instead provide the capital and move that forward. Right now is our current focus because that there has been such a vocal interest and because that does protect shareholders from dilution and it doesn't require us to go out and raise additional capital or deploy so much of the capital that we currently have as cash on hand in -- for specifically driving those assets forward. So that's our current focus. So what you're really speaking to are a few tools we have in our toolbox to safeguard the company under different circumstances, but they're not things that we're actively focusing on as a primary means of driving liquidity or capital.

With your $16 million in cash, do you envision that something like that $30 million would be probably down the road versus sooner than later?

Yes, definitely down the road, if used at all. And I think the real factor in there that determines whether or not we utilize the ATM would be twofold. One would be, of course, a balance of where our share price is and our liquidity. Our expectation is our share price, of course, is -- our expectation is it's going to see considerable growth, and we want to make sure that we're poised to be opportunistic should that really occur. And we believe a lot of that excitement, of course, will come around LensAI, the platform and these assets that are being spun out. And so yes, we definitely would be looking at that as a potential future use based on where our share price and growth is coming from and what it's at.

I'll now hand the call back to Dr. Jennifer Bath, our CEO, for closing comments.

Wonderful. Thank you so much, Regina. As we close, I want to connect the scientific and strategic progress we have discussed with the notable financial results that Scott has just reviewed with you. This quarter, we delivered 54% year-over-year revenue growth, and our gross profit nearly doubled with an impressive 94% to $2.7 million, while achieving a 65% profit margin. We improved operating performance from our continued operations, and we completed the sale of our noncore facilities, leaving us with $16.5 million in cash to fund the next phase of growth. These outcomes reflect the deliberate plan we set in motion to transform MindWalk. By design, we have aligned our platforms, programs and corporate structure around BioNative AI vision. HYFT patterns and LensAI are already shaping real assets. In GLP1 and longevity, LensAI points us to a single best scoring design for a tightly defined shortlist, not a long catalog of undifferentiated hits. In dengue, strict HYFT criteria led us to a conserved epitope across all 4 serotypes, selected on biochemical evidence rather than legacy antigen lists. Our asset strategy is clear: secure strong IP around HYFT-defined targets and pair each program with strategic capital partners who can accelerate development. To enable that, we mentioned we're working with Walker Legal to establish a Cayman Islands-based segregated portfolio structure for our AI-driven pipeline, where each LensAI-derived program is housed and financed in its own portfolio. We are in active discussions with investors interested in this model and intend to share a formal update along with new information on our lead programs and our capital and partnering approach before the market opened on the first day of J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference. That update released through national media will give investors a clear view on how these assets will contribute to MindWalk's long-term value creation. Our priorities are straightforward: continue to strengthen the HYFT and LensAI platform, advance our internal programs such as GLP1, dengue and future programs, deepen engagement with enterprise customers and deploy capital in ways that compound our strategic advantage. This combination of technology, differentiated assets, market understanding and partnership positions MindWalk within the small group of companies that will define how AI is applied to biologics. Thank you for your time today and for your continued support.

This will conclude our call today. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.