SAGILITY LIMITED analyst Q&A

Okay. So we had a few questions come in from the QR code, which was scanned. I would say most of them when we went through it were also asked by many of you when the mic came to you earlier. So we won't repeat those questions so that we can actually move o n to more live questions from all of us here. Some of our leaders are on stage and you know others are here as well. Page | 65 I'll request the mic volunteers to be bold and not be shy. So if the mic volunteers can be in the middle of the hall, Shiva, if the mic volunteers can be a bit more bold and so that we can make sure the mic reaches the person who wants to ask the question. I will step off the stage and if you can please raise your hand the mic will come to you quickly and we'll try to answer that question.

I think there were two questions which I had noted down which I didn't get the time to respond. One of the question was from you ma'am in terms of asking if the managed services case study was for the top five client or it was from there. So you probably saw it in Chris' slide, it's actually part of the top seven. It's one of those smaller LOBs of that client, and that's why it's a 25 million opportunity. So the way to think of it is that in a very large plan those LOBs exist where they cann ot focus all the time on that and therefore they become the right candidates for managed services kind of outsourcing. So hope that answers your question. I think there was a question from behind somebody had asked in terms of why people for managed services would choose Sagility versus competition. I think that was the question. Yes. So there is no right for us to go and demand the business as such. Competition is going to be there, competition is tough. They're equally good competitors in the market. The way to look at is in a managed services place where it comes is that if you're already there running that shop or running that business for the client, client has seen you perform. That's the first thing and that's where our delivery leader is here and we'll interact later on. A very strong delivery track record, then Sri took about showed all those benefits we have consistently delivered over a period of time, 11.4 million of administrative saving, 5 million saving on late payment interest etc. All that we have already demonstr ated. Now it becomes an easier discussion that if you give me this business where you've seen me deliver the day-to-day operation as well as transformation and now I'm going to risk my dollars, my money on delivering the result and transformation. I'm actually the risk mitigated partner for you to deliver those services. So that's the reason why we compete well in that kind of a space. And it's always going to be, is that customer will create their own internal ROI or case of how much investment they need, what is the benefit they'll get internally at enterprise level and they'll compare with ours if we are giving better results, the bus iness will likely come to us. So that's the case. Of course and internally also it's that their control points etc which we have to take care of in the customer side. Page | 66 Somebody may want to give their business, somebody may not want to give their business, keep it in-house. So those kind of things happen. But roughly speaking, the reason why I made very clear managed services, we are specifically targeting where we have i ncumbency, where we have a track record of delivering is because exactly the point that you're bringing out. That's a competitive strength there, okay. So these were the two questions. I don't think I had any other question, which I have not answered in that time. So, we'll go from the new ones.

Yeah. Siddharth Vora from HSBC Mutual Fund. I'd like to ask a few initiatives which you will be doing for more cross sell of services. We saw a lot of scope in terms of top clients or mid and small clients as well that many of them are dominant on the clai ms management side, but other segments may be not working. So what is happening or it's purely a client maturity curve in terms of what they are accepting upfront and what they will do later on? More ideas or more initiatives in that?

Yeah, I'll start it off and then maybe Chris and even Roopam can add to that, right? So you're right, right? So if you look at the -- we've answered this question before. If you look at the journey of outsourcing, people took some of the more administrativ e aspects as the easy candidates for outsourcing and offshoring. So claims was one of those candidates that a lot of the payers chose as their first option to outsource. One of the things that we've spoken to you and hopefully came out toda y is clinical is a big growth area for us. And clinical is in the relative scheme of things, it's a newer area, right? So most of the payers, I would say started looking at clinical not more than five to 10 years ago, right? Even our oldest clinical client is about probably 10, 12 years old. That's because there was the belief that the work was complex and the work couldn't be delivered by a partner and especially in an offshore kind of a situation, right. So and that's changed over the last 10 years. We've proven to clients that we have the capability to find the right skill set even in some of our offshore locations. And we can deliver it to the same level of quality and outcomes that they can in-house. And the MLR being a big issue, like you heard today, people are now more open to even newer programs. So Krithika spoke about care management and so on. As long as you can show an ROI, people are willing to spend. So it's not a question of I'm currently spending X and I want to reduce that. It's even if you want me to spend incremental, if you can show an ROI in a new program, I'm willing to spend that. So that's a completely new avenue Page | 67 for growth. And then some of the capabilities were acquired capabilities. We were doing payment integrity, but we didn't have the end -to-end payment integrity capability. That acquisition got us those capabilities. And payment integrity is an opportunity where clients are not constrained by how many vendors they have. So it's more if you can identify additional dollars, then I'm happy to give it to you because you may not b e the first pass vendor, but you may be a second or a third pass. You can still identify opportunities, you get paid. So those new capabilities are so obviously things that we can take to our existing clients. So that's why you see some of the white spaces, either because we didn't have those capabilities up until recently or even in the evolution of outsourcing, some of those areas are more recent than the others.

Yeah, I'd say I have one. The other if you looked at that chart and put, years of tenure by it, that would follow one, two, three, as well. In some cases, it just takes some time. Regarding the small and mid-market, there is still especially in that, we'll call it small and Roopam defined mid-market as a million and less, if small is 500,000 or 400,000 and less. There's still an awful lot of mission driven non -profit plans out there that really resisted outsourcing and still do to a large degree. And they are now forced as I hate to use that term, but the per member per month admin costs of the large nationals and even that next level down is so low compared to theirs. They're almost at a point where they have no choice. They really need to do some thing to address those administrative costs just to stay just to keep up with the rest of the industry. So that's taken some time, but it's changing, it's actually changing pretty rapidly. The MLR charts that Ramesh showed, those so yeah, we took the publicly available information and showed you. That dynamic exists throughout the industry. So just the confluence of those two things is going to drive a lot more people towards specialists like us to help take some of the cost out. Hope that answered the question.

Thanks for a great set of presentations and demos. This is Anil Nahata of Parami Financial over here. I have a few questions. One is in terms of GTM, where you go to a customer who is a new customer to you essentially or one of the areas where outsourcing has not been explored much. What is the typical kind of a sales cycle and the time that you need Page | 68 to convince a customer? And typically, how much kind of effort and do you need actual data to go along with the customer in such cases?

What was the last part of the question?

Do you need to actually demonstrate some data or some outcomes to the customer as a pilot or something?

Sure. So in those, there's a few a couple of ways to answer that. One, and this came through some of the acquisitions that Sagility has made with the Payment Integrity and BroadPath. Our solutions in the Payment Integrity example, they pay for themselves. It's an easy ROI and it helps that we don't get paid unless we find some money to recover. On the BroadPath side, that company grew up solving very immediate niche problems for plans, very low barriers to entry, oftentimes very, very short contracts. And part of the acquisition was, okay, let's leverage that to get into more new logos. And that' s certainly been a proven path of success. Then the last thing I would say is, I mentioned the accelerators, the advisors and analysts. Those personally are my favourite. If a plan, if a potential client has engaged with an independent, a third-party advisor, either be it one of the big four, somebody who specialises in healthcare. We're making sure that those firms know who we are and what we do. They are in a very strong position to help a client you know define their problem, evaluate potential solutions, basically get about a third of the way through the sales cycle and then call us and certainly some competitors too. But all that really, really hard work upfront that takes a long time in a sales cycle and can be very difficult for a vendor to manoeuvre. If a third-party is doing that and we're jumping in the middle of the sales cycle, it compresses the time it takes to win that business and it's much more clearly defined for us.

So you would say in the third case that you were explaining about with the third-party involved and all, it will be a factor of somewhere between six to 12 months kind of a thing or lesser than that?

I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. A sales cycle? If a third-party is involved, it's much shorter. Yes, closer to the six, right.

Thank you for that. The second question is when the customers are looking at non which are not basically outcome based contracts, so you don't have an outcome based contracts and now you're having the agents coming. So there's a new way of looking at thing s from different from an Page | 69 FTE kind of a thing. So how are the customers looking at pricing and how are you looking at pricing in those scenarios?

I think I can take that. So one is, which is usually the rebids, which are not very good for vendors, if you're not the incumbent rebids, your chances of success are very, very low. And we are obviously not in the business of cutting the FTE hourly rates a nd then going with the lower option. That's not usually not our area. So even clients who are going with saying that there's no managed services and we don't even have adequate data to give a managed services proposal, what we are providing is we're giving a roadmap, I mean in many places we have gone through a standard T&M based approach. I mean, one client that we grew last year quite a bit, server managed this one when the process stabilised and we showed that they had 18, 19 claims per hour, we started doing 25, 26 claims. Then we said that look, how are we doing this? Why don't we convert into transaction rates so that we share the benefits together? So that's what was this one. And now we're negotiating and discussing other models which can incentivise both the organisations. So yes, when there's a new client acquisition, we have to go by the process, whatever is the client's process, but we give them in advance a roadmap that look, we may enter like this and in clinical cases, even with large, very large payers we have done th is is that we understand your problem, but we also understand your process that you're going to give us partial volumes, income competition with others, our rate card has to be in line with that, we are perfectly okay with it. But that's not why we are focusing on this business is that we agree to take you through the journey into partial outcomes and then fully outcome based kind of model, which fortunately for us some of our competitors and many of the incumbents are not even trying to do to their own business. So we are coming as disruptors there. So the differentiator is now or later in future, you will still require a Gen AI infused outcome based model so that you can get benefited by the new technology which is coming in w ithout you yourself having to take the risk and cost of implementation of a new technology.

Thank you for that. And my final question is on the two segments that you are having, the broad segments, the payer and the providers. Of course, 90% of our business is the payer business, but you have a 10% on the provider side also. So how do you see thi s provider side going forward? And what is your focus on that business? Page | 70

Yes, I'll take that question, right? So yes, in the interest of time, we didn't get into the provider business today. But I've taken up this question in the past. Providers is a segment that in the past historically, our focus is a lot more on the payer si de, but we are doubling down on the provider side also. If you look at one of our Agentic AI solution was focused on the revenue cycle. So today, we are looking at the process and that is more amenable to an Agentic solution because that's in a lot of cases, that's also currently an outcome based model. Provide rs, especially in the back end of the revenue cycle, they give us work and they pay us on outcomes, the cash that we collect for them. So we get the data from the client and everything else is dictated by us, starting with predictive modelling on what cla ims are likely to get denied, what claims we should follow-up at what point in time and so on. And so all of those point solutions are already there. Now we are doubling down and saying, can we create an Agentic layer on top of that and bring a lot more efficiencies to that process. So yes, that's also in the same roadmap with respect to technology and transformation. And we intend to double down on the provider business. And some of the other opportunities that we're also looking at providers, some of the solutions that Krithika was talking about in the clinical space, right? Today, a lot of what we do in provider is the traditional RCM based services. But we are also trying to take some of the capabilities that we've built on the payer side with respect to some of our clinical solutions and trying to take them to the provider. So from both those aspects, we are likely to focus a lot more on the provider and hopefully accelerate the growth on that side of the business too.

This is Atul Mehra from Motilal Oswal. Thank you once again. I have a question for Chris. If you had to grow at 2x the growth that you are currently growing at, what are the key constraints in terms of either teams or time or if you can explain with some examples? Thanks.

It's less of a constraint than more of a what's the business mix, right? Some of our offerings implement much faster. Some of them take a long time. So growing at a rate like that is certainly doable for us. We have a very scalable model, our operations are, just the global footprint that we have that removes a lot of constraints that certainly I was used to at BroadPath. Page | 71 But I'll go back to that my initial answer. It really depends on the business mix as some are harder to implement, take longer to implement than others.

But in terms of like you showcased in your presentation there are so many low hanging fruits in terms of cross sell, in terms of the new logos you'll have added etc. So typically when it comes to a client conversion, to like from a conversation to a conversion. I think there was question previously as well in terms of the lead cycle it takes and so on. So what is like in the conversation to conversion, what are the key roadblocks you all face when a conversion doesn't happen?

So because a lot of times it's the first conversation they've had on some of these topics especially with those smaller plans, right. Nobody's approached them before with a, hey, we've got this clinical service, here's the value it provides. So you are in itiating the sales process as opposed to, if they've identified a problem internally, organise an initiative to go find a solution for it. So that's where we are with a lot of the, especially, the smaller clients where there is that green spaces. We're introducing that, maybe they thought of it before, but they never did anything about it. So it just takes longer that way when we're the ones that are the -- we're the impetus for picking up the initiative, not them.

And if there was one thing you could do, which you are not doing currently to further accelerate growth, what would that be?

One thing, you want one thing?

Yeah. I can talk of one other things, right? One of the things that historically we didn't do well and like Chris said, we've started focusing a lot more is the partnership ecosystem. So thanks to both Roopam and Chris, and another teammate of ours. We've started focusing a lot more on the partner ecosystem. It does two things. One, it enlarges the scope of what you can deliver. The Synchrony suite of solutions is something that we couldn't be delivering on our own. We need partners for that. And two the point that Chris made, the minute we start working with a partner, it also kind of opens up other opportunities that you didn't have because they have their own pipeline. So that becomes part of your pipeline now. And so you can not only take their solutions to your existing clients, but it also opens up another channel of pipeline. I think that's one thing, I would think, we didn't do so well in the past, which hopefully will result in more deals in the future. Page | 72

Thank you. Ramesh, hi. This is Baidik Sarkar from Unifi Capital. I think what my industry colleague was trying to ask you was what kind of growth rates are you willing to commit to yourself and us today evening. So if you could please address that for all of us, point number one. And my end of the question is, look, we've been acquisitive for the right reasons. But like Chris said, there continues to be enormous amount of white spaces. So given that we're very close to deleveraging event in J anuary of 2027, our cash accretion is what it is, how close are we to another M&A event? And what white spaces are we looking at? And financially, what kind of ROIs do you expect from that given sales cycles given the valuations are? So if you could just marry these three answers into a simplistic narrative.

First of all, Atul is very open. So he can ask, if he really wants to know the growth rate, he would asked it specifically. But yeah, look, specific guidances we'll give with our earnings call that will happen in May. But broadly, given all that you heard today, we believe that there is no reason for us not to grow at historical growth rates. So that's the broad guidance I'd give. While there's been a lot of questions around AI and its impact and its disruption and so on. There's nothing internally that we believe will constrain us from continuing to grow at historical rates. The questions around can you accelerate it further and so on are good questions, and obviously, we would also like to grow faster than we are growing today. But at least one thing that I can say, what we see, at least for the near term, I don't want to make a five year projection, is we will continue to grow at historical rates in the, like I said, low double -digits to mid -teens kind of a number. But specific guidances for the next financial, we will give closer to the earnings call. Your second question, yes, M&A has always been a strategy of ours. And like I've said, historically, two reasons we do M&A. One, the BroadPath kind of M&A was more to get access to clients. And like Chris said, we have about 30 odd clients where we just do one service today, opens up a huge opportunity to cross sell other services. And the second thing is from a capabilities point of view. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of BroadPath like targets, especially focused on healthcare alone, because that, I mean, we'd always love to shorten the sales cycle. And if there's an established relationship that makes the job much easier. But there are not a lot of BroadPath like targets available. So most of the acquisitions are going to be more capability focused. And as you saw in the presentation today, we are emphasising a lot more on Page | 73 our clinical solutions, right. So there's going to be, I mean, there are a couple that we are evaluating, and I can't comment on how soon or how longer it will take to close those. But if we were to do an acquisition, the ones that we are looking at currently are more in the clinical domain. And yeah, ROI from an acquisition is obviously, as part of the business case, we anything that we pay, the multiples we pay compared to our current multiples and what's the accretion or dilution, all of those get into the equation. Most of the times, I mea n, from an ROI perspective, acquisitions have worked for us, at least the recent ones that we've done. And you can rest assured that we'll pay the right value and make it accretive in the long run.

Hi, this is Chetan Shah from Jeet Capital. Just continue to what Baidik is trying to understand and something add to that. Can you just give us some idea about you like we have spent plenty of time on AI and AI related thing, whether it is a disruptor or an enabler or whatever it is all about. Bu t can this automation of business implementation to our clients, thanks to AI and AI related activity, increase the size of the opportunity for us, one part that. And second, some of the clients who are at the sideline as of now, either due to the cost, second due to any other reason can come into the fold of our opportunity space. And third and most important which some portion Chris answer is that sales cycle is little longer. One of the reason is the implementation of some of the modules of our businesses takes time and this can AI enable that to do it at a much faster pace and su ddenly the client will be more than happy to get into the opportunity without disrupting his activity or ongoing business? These are the three.

I'll try and remember the three, anybody wants to pick up. Roopam, you want pick up any of that?

Yeah. I can take that and same thing probably you'll have to help me with the parts of the question. AI is definitely speeding up implementation and time to revenue for us. But there are certain cycles that you have to be clear of, like Medicare life cycl e product that we talked about. AEP does not start till October. So even if we go sign the deal now, it's not going to. And really speaking, the strength is going to come in next calendar year, because the new plan benefit filing or new bene fit design that the client will do is actually for calendar year '28. So it's really we have to time our revenue projection based on when these new services will get consumed Page | 74 by the customer. And that happens based on the cycle of the business that goes on there. Similarly, things like payment integrity. Even when we implement everything and start recovering or start showing which are the claims to be recovered or something, till the time recoveries actually happen, we don't get the revenue. So there is a cycle for the implementation, the readiness of the client side to flag those identified claims, review that and say, okay, now you go recover and then recoveries happen. So there are certain business cycles that we cannot speed up even with Gen AI or without Gen A I because those are business cycles, not operational cycles. But then the other part of where the implementation, the IT services components and all, definitely there are lot of accelerators have come into the market. The testing has become much simpler, faster. So those things are taken care of. But they are all, they are just allowing us as to be right on time, quality and costs and be delivered in time. The real cycle is the business cycle, which is linked to AEP, linked to claims recoveries, linked to claims processing actually starting. Most of the cutovers that happen when they change vendors or something is data service based and that is because healt h plans have accumulators in your annual this one is that your total service that you have deductibles, etc., is by calendar year. So a lot of those plans will not start with a new vendor on -- with the date of service date of anything other than January 1. So these are some of the constraints that we cannot change, okay? So that's really on the cycle. The other two questions, if you can just come back on.

Yeah. First question, I mean, hopefully, I'll answer it, but hopefully throughout the day today, that's what we were trying to address. The one message that I want all of you to take over is we are not viewing Gen AI as a disruptor. Yes, it is going to di srupt, but we are viewing Gen AI as something that's going to expand the scope of what we can offer and accelerate our growth. So if that's one message that I want all of you to take back today is that message. To the question on how are you protecting your revenues, we don't want to use the term of protecting our revenue, because we are in the business of adding value to our clients. We are not going to stop generating efficiency because we have to protect our revenue. Our job is to generate Page | 75 efficiencies and pass on those efficiencies to the client and make the relationship stickier so that we can continue to grow with those clients. So with that in mind, so we are not using the term protecting our revenue. We are using the term, we will embrace Gen AI, we will generate those efficiencies, we'll give them back to the client, and we'll use these new models to go to our existing clients and other clients and win more business, right? So that's -- and you've seen with a number of use cases how we can enlarge the scope of what we do. Managed services, Roopam gave the example, a current 6 million can actually become a 20 million, even though, I'm committing to a 5 million cost takeout. There are models like that. We spoke about MLR, but it's not a question of cost of service reduction, but it's more a return on investment decision. So there are a number of examples we've given today to kind of dispel the notion that you have to view AI p urely as a disruptor to your revenue. But hopefully the message we are trying to deliver is AI can also accelerate our growth.

Yeah, thank you so much. And just one very specific question. In of the clients and this is completely my personal assessment speaking to some of your existing or potential customer. One reason why the things get delayed is internally within the top or th e mid layer team, is not ready to bring such technology into the system because some of them may become redundant within the organisation. Is there also one of the reason why, this is what we are getting the feedback. I'm not sure about this, but I'm just want to clarify that.

I'll start and I'll ask Madan or someone else to right, which is very true. In healthcare in general, you can probably know this, that adopting newer technologies takes time. And hopefully, one of the things that we also told you is, one, they are slow in general. Two, also it's the nature of the industry. The regulatory complexity, all of the data protection, data privacy, all of those things generally are reasons why clients take more time to make sure that they don't do something that's going to cost them millions and billions of dollars to fix. So a lot of times our use cases, while we have the capability to deploy some use cases, we are waiting for clients to give us permission to do that, because we are still working on the frameworks for the guardrails and how they -- the whole framework for deploying AI. Madan you wanted to… Page | 76

Yeah. So one of the things that to make AI effective and impactful, you need to organise your data. And that can be time consuming if you have not already taken the time to, for instance, build to do the data aggregation, build your data lakes and such th at allow for this curated data then to be made readily available, it can be less than the impactful. So sometimes when we talk to our clients, they're busy fixing those things, and so they may want to delay or put us off for a period of time. There's still ways in which that we can bring about some change and make an impact, but we have to work around tho se constraints. Gen AI by itself can be an accelerator there, but there also as Ramesh pointed out, some amount of trepidation around, well, how is this going to expose us to certain risks? And then there are governance committees that get involved. They want to have their say. So there's all of these types of gates that you have to cross before you get to the point of saying, okay, we get it, now we can move forward. A lot of times, we will get the buy in from our business partners on the client side. The IT partners sometimes w ill take longer to come around, and give us the go ahead. So it's just the nature of the process, and we need to work through it.

Thanks. Good evening, everyone. This is Namit Arora from IndGrowth Capital. Firstly, many thanks for putting the day together. It's been very useful to have the entire leadership team here. I have one question around competitive landscape. How do you look at that and there were a couple of interesting slides, one was where you had your ecosystem of partners, for example, you even mentioned CTS and others. And the second, somebody mentioned that even when clients are looking at innovation, they've actually asked you to coordinate with several other players who may be your competitors. So give us some colour on how you think of competitive landscape for you, number one. And number two is, as some of the larger other companies, let's say, like Accenture, IBM or Infy and others. I mean, I know your business is very, very specialised. You have domain knowledge. But as they sort of feel some pressure with AI and others, are t hey trying to make some inroads here? Just give us some thoughts on all of that. Thank you.

Yeah, I'll start off and Chris, Roopam can add to that, right? Look, in the space that we are in, which is, again, we define it as transforming healthcare operations. We come across a set of, I would say about five, six competitors in most scenarios, right. But the market is broad enough, Page | 77 I mean, if you look at the service lines, the service areas, the domain, it's large enough that there's ample room, in my view, for everybody to grow. More importantly, the things that differentiate us from any of them is what I started the session with. Our domain expertise and our broad service portfolio are two things that we think are superior to most of our competition. And being focused on one indu stry has its benefits. Obviously, your market is restricted to that one industry. But everything that we do today is focused on solving business problems in that industry. So a lot of our investments, be it in AI, be it in other tech solutions, is all extremely focused on solving business problems that most of our client’s encounter, right. So that gives us the razor sharp focus as well. And that's always helped us deal with competition. But to your point, yes, it's not a huge list of competitors, but we typically see the same five, six names when we compete.

Yeah. And I think you named names, so I'm not going to repeat them, but I'm just saying is that those vendors are already competitors for us. So it's no different from what's happening today. Yes, if they are pressured, they like to expand in the space we are in. But it's the same thing. They'll have to fight against our strong delivery, our incumbency, our relationships, our transformation that we are already bringing in. So we don't see that as a big threat that something will happen, because they have pressure on the IT services side and they'll come in, because they are already there and we are competing well against them. And we have respect for those organisations, they'll definitely come with their strengths. But we have our own strengths in places they'll win, in places where we are winning we'll continue to win. So I think that ecosystem and that competitive dynamics is not likely to change.

And the other thing I want to point out to in addition to what Roopam said is, our pricing constructs that we spoke about. So we are not going to market as a software vendor. We are not charging license revenue. Yes, I mean, I'm not saying we'll charge ze ro implementation, but we can absorb some of those costs and amortise it over a period of time. So we are not looking at generating upfront revenue from some of the transformation that we do. So that's also a big advantage that we have compared to others who want to monetise it right up front.

Thank you very much, Ramesh, Roopam, and the entire team, and all the best to the entire team. Thank you. Page | 78

Hello this is Pallavi Deshpande from Sameeksha Capital. The SaaS tools, I mean how has that uptick picked up? And in terms of our ability, our own, how many engineers would we have writing code?

Is your question more about how are we using Gen AI to improve the productivity of our own engineering stuff?

Right.

Okay. Yeah. So certainly, we have jumped in with both feet. We clearly understand the power that it gives us across the entire not just in from the standpoint of software coding, the entire software development life cycle. So there is an internal initiativ e that's underway. It started about a year ago, and we're coming up to a point where we're having our first measurement of the impact on that productivity gains. And the data so far is quite promising. So we will continue to double down on that. We certainly see the benefits. At the same time, we are also, I would say cautious because it's a double edged sword. If you don't properly monitor and supervise the use of these tools, it can lead to some, not just bad practices, but it can also lead to errors entering into your code base. You have to be very careful about that because what we obviously don't want to do is to cause any of our clients to lose confidence in our abilities. So we are very carefully, but enthusiastically taking advantage of th ese capabilities.

And the other reason is we don't build these out to clients directly. So for us, any efficiency that we can generate is very important. So we have no hesitation in using it to the fullest to generate whatever efficiencies we can.

Just to complement Madan's team with the similar workforce type, the value creation projects that we are doing for top three clients, now we are doing for six clients. So obviously all the additive knowledge that we have built that Madan was showing those cumulative knowledge that also plays and also the productivity gains that we have with all these tools which are coming in. So from with the similar cost structure, we are able to handle much larger client base for value creation projects.

My second question would be what would be like you showed us different pieces of examples here or there. So like if I look at it right from the typical, right from the start to the end, member enrolment and entire billing. Page | 79 Which pieces, or how should I say how do you imagine it with AI two years hence in this whole flow, where does which pieces get impacted most?

I'll give a broad answer and Roopam will probably add to that. We think every single process that you saw in our process thing can benefit from the use of AI. So I wouldn't say there's anything out there where AI can't add value. Like Madan said, even with in and those are all broader functions and processes. Within that process, the tasks at a task level, we may not deploy Gen AI across the board. There are some tasks that can benefit through other forms of agents. But at a process level and at a function level, I think every function can take the advantage of AI. But in terms of the impact from an efficiency point of view, obviously processes which consume a lot of unstructured data, we'll see a lot more benefits coming out of AI. Krithika and Ram showed the example of documents, 10 page, 50 page text. Those kinds of documents when somebody has to manually go through them and make decisions and so on, versus the use of AI to at least put together the recommendation before the human reviews and makes the final call. The level of efficiencies that you can generate are far higher. Then a process which is already rules based on very structure. So that's the two ways I would answer the question. If Roopam, you want to add anything?

No, I'll just bring back the same point. We are not coming with a mindset of trying to see what's AI proof or reduced AI disruption, because that's a losing game in the long run anyway. So think of it as AI is going to penetrate every part of the operation s. Maybe some places your regulatory issues like anything which is about denial of access to care or delay of access to care or an adverse decision that you're making against a member or a provider. These will certainly require a lot of human involvement for sure. But other than that, you will have AI. Now there's always going to be a degree of effectiveness of AI, a process which is using a lot of structured data, a process which has limited volumes in each type of, let's say, claims spends. There are hundreds of t ypes of claims spends with very low volume. Probably it will not be the right case for just going after Gen AI or reading SOPs and trying to solve this immediately. So we'll have those kinds of things which are coming up. What we are looking at is assume that Gen AI is available as one more means of delivering the business process outcome. Now come with a solution which can handle and deliver client the outcomes. So our Page | 80 thinking is different from the productive mindset of saying is that let's go focus in areas which will not be impacted by Gen AI because that's not in my opinion, that's not a sustainable way of growing the business. I mean anybody else wants to add to that?

I think, yes, we've made that point.

Hi, this is Ravi Menon from Macquarie Capital. Could you give a breakup of your payer revenue by service? That's how much would be claims, how much would be from Synchrony, how much would be provider that credentials validation stuff like that?

So I mean our payer revenues are around 90% of our total revenues. One- third of our payer revenues are claims revenues, one -third of our payer revenues are your clinical and payment integrity and the other one -third is a member and provider life cycle.

And how about the payment integrity and all that?

Payment integrity and clinical combined is closer to 30%, one-third.

And Synchrony itself?

Synchrony cuts across, so we don't track it like that. We track things according to those service practice areas and Synchrony purposely cuts across all of that.

And from a capability evolution like I showed. So the first three pillars are what got us today, and then the automation of complex workflows and Synchrony, those are more forward looking. So those are solutions that we are taking to market currently for future proofing our business.

And although you're very healthcare focused, I mean, how about adjacencies like say, in retail, I've seen that some of your competitors have, something for similar to the sort of leakages that are there and payments, you have solutions that could be addressed there?

No, at this point, we want to continue to remain a healthcare firm. Like I've mentioned in the past, we are thinking about relooking at the definition of healthcare that we've focused on in the past, which has been restricted to payers and providers. We might expand upon that definition and look at adjacencies within the healthcare space. But that's the extent to which we will go, at least in the foreseeable future. So we don't intend going to retail or financial services and so on. Page | 81

Hi, I'm back here. Varun Gandhi from Finavenue Growth Fund, back here. So my question is and it's trying to understand the core of your business model. So we work with healthcare systems like Availity or Health Access. But Sagility's position, so we act as a traditional BPO provider by bringing in our clinically trained workforce and trying to orchestrate workflows. But beyond that, what's the sticky element that makes the customer stick to you? Is it the execution prowess that you demonstrate? Just trying to understand what's the proprietary element here that Sagility brings to the equation?

I'm a little disappointed that after five hours, you're asking me that question. Anyway, so I mean, don't mind repeating. If we don't, if you look at me and my colleagues in the five hours, we didn't use the word BPO. Yes, broadly, you want to classify us as a BPO, yes, we are a BPO. But we are not in the business of clients defining the rules and the process documentation and we following the documentation to deliver an outcome. We built this business over 25 years, and today we believe we have the domain expertise to redesign processes to give clients business outcomes through changes that they haven't been able to implement themselves. And if, yes, if that's something, is something that we've done, like I said, over 25 years, and that those capabilities is what differentiates us. To the question on competition, yes, there are other people who operate in the healthcare space. We differentiate because of the domain expertise that we bring in. And all of our transformation capabilities are focused on solving specific business problems that our clients have. And that's what helps us win business and grow the business. So I don't know if Roopam or Chris want to add to that. But today, a large part of why we win is the fact that we have the deepest understanding of how the ecosystem works. We also have a very good understanding of our clients' ecosystem and what kinds of solutions are most relevant for our clients. And so it's not always, order taker mentality. So it's not that the clients determine, what we should do at what point in time. Yes, the relationship might start that way, they have a need and they call us in, but the evolution of that relationship is we proactively taking solutions to them and solving their business problems.

Understood. My second question would be, you showcased many AI products that we have, but these will sit as wrappers on top of these Page | 82 healthcare systems that I earlier referred to. And so my understanding is that these products would largely be platform agnostic. If so, how susceptible are we to the risk that the healthcare system providers or these guys who are owning the tech stack, th ey tomorrow develop their own AI products to or Agentic AI products who are orchestrating the same workflows, then there's a good chance they may displace us. So some comments over there.

Yeah. I'll start by saying that what we take to and make available to our clients is not just the technology. It's the technology and the services together in a lot of cases. So the entities that you refer to as the health system I think you call them health system. I think you mentioned health equity and people like that. They're offering a technology by itself. So, yes, you're right that over time, you'll -- they'll embed more Gen AI. We expect them to. And we expect to take advantage of th e Gen AI capabilities that they've embedded in their platforms. But there'll always be room for us to add additional value, because we combine those features with our additional services in order to deliver a full-fledged offering to them. That's of more value to them than just the technology by itself.

But then a lot of the value capture would happen on the tech layer, rather than the services layer? Just trying to understand.

I would say the value capture happens in the combination of the two. That's why we're delivering the value to them, in my view.

See, we are not going to market saying we have the Gen AI capabilities. The contracts that we are signing up with clients, we are still accountable for the business outcomes. That's the biggest difference. We are not going to, and Gen AI or any other solu tion is an enabler to delivering the business outcome because my clients are still holding me accountable for the business outcomes, irrespective of whether I use 50% automation or 80% automation. So in the whole equation, whether it's and a lot of the platforms and Synchrony that we are talking about, the orchestration layer could be done by us, could be done by our partners, could be done by a combination of us and our partners. But ultimately, th e client is seeing value in what's the cost of delivering that and whether you're still committing to the same business outcomes.

Got it. So you're trying to say that the value is in the outcome rather than the process? Page | 83

Yes.

Thank you for that.

I think the other way of looking at it is, I think you mentioned Availity, Health Access, a few of these kind of companies. So everybody has a Gen AI play, but it's restricted to their platform. And the platform is not an end- to-end process, okay. The Syn chrony Medicare life cycle that we talked about, think of where it's from the design of the benefit products to filing to that benefit information moving into the sales system, the consumer portal, and somebody making sales calls, brokers ha ndling the same information, then you're enrolling the member, the same benefit information has to move into your premium billing and member enrolment system and into the claim system. These are five, six different systems and everybody has Gen AI play in their own. But if I have to deliver this, which we are delivering as an outcome from end-to-end and that includes even paper fax enrolments which are coming in and which import and output is print out where you're sending out ID cards and everything is going to an external player. There's none of these platform vendors can have a Gen AI play across the entire life cycle. That's where we come in with an outcome-based solution and say that we have our own Gen AI agents, for example, fax intelligent content processing is with us, output management is with us, orchestration layer is with us and then we are calling and we are working with the Benefit One products, GenAI module. So it's something like that you're basically taking the entire outcome, then coming in how you can deliver optimally with the each one of those platforms and utilising what's the core automation that has been built into the platform.

Effectively, you're saying that you're like the connection point between these different layers of system that we have?

Connection point, orchestration point, responsibility of human in the loop, outcome delivered to the end.

Got you. Thank you very much and thank you again for hosting us today.

Yes, thank you.

I think we are out of time. Any further questions, we can take your last question. Page | 84

I have a broad question on margin front and our employee headcount, like is there any possibility that as we are wrapping up the AI layer in our existing offering, client may ask for the benefit pass on in future? And second, our margins are more than 22% or 25% year about. Is there any chances that it may face some sort of compression going forward? And on headcount front, you consider that going forward due to more and more AI led offering, we may reduce our headc ount significantly considering the current strength of near about 40,000 employee workforce?

Yeah. It's difficult today to give specific numbers. So but broadly, directionally, what we can say is, look, as we deploy more and more of this AI and Agentic AI solutions, if you look at our revenue productivity at a geo level, that is likely to signifi cantly improve. Our overall today, headcount and revenue per FTE is also determined by the geographic mix. We have people in the U.S. who generate higher revenue per headcount. We have people in India who generate much lower revenue per headcount, right? So that geographic mix is still going to play out in the future. But if you look at like-to-like, if I look at the revenue per FTE per employee in India today versus what it's likely to be two years or three years down the road, it's likely to show a significant movement upwards. And then at the enterprise level, it wil l be a weighted average of what headcounts I have. So broadly, yes, We are confident that we'll be delivering more revenue per headcount at a geo level and depending on the business mix, it will also show up in the overall company level. With that and with the growth rates that we are expecting, whether headcount will stay static, whether it will reduce or it will increase, but not increase at the same proportion as revenues, those are numbers we need to play out. But otherwise, at a geo l evel, like I said, you will see a significant improvement in revenue per headcount.

On margins?

Margin, again, is a question of how we want to grow. So broadly, in the past, we've said that we are comfortable at the current margin levels we are in, while automation, transformation, Agentic AI could help us improve margins, we want to plow that back as benefits that we pass on to clients and continue to grow our business. And that broadly still remains the same. All of these tools will enable us to generate better Page | 85 efficiencies. It's a question of what portion of those efficiencies we pass back to clients versus what portion that we retain for ourselves. And broadly, we are happy with the margins where they are, so we'll try our best to retain these margins, while utilising the benefits that we generate to help us continue to grow. So that's been the broad strategy even in the past, and we'll continue to do that in the future as well.

Thank you.

If you look at outsourcing penetration, 20% or 40% in your top five clients. What is stopping the faster growth in the industry basically. I mean is it the client itself being hesitant to outsource this, and so then..

I didn't understand the question.

Overall outsourcing penetration is low, what is stopping?

Overall across the industry is low. I mean healthcare has traditionally been the most conservative industry in terms of embracing outsourcing. A lot of that is regulatory driven. But I mean it's also, as always said healthcare and financial services are t he most personal industries out there, because they, I mean, you're talking about your health and your finances, the two most personal things to you. Companies are always, they position themselves as the trusted entity in that interaction. S o it's just natural that healthcare is more conservative that way. But another way to look at it is we had a meeting a few months ago with one of the large consulting firms and they brought up the question of what really is a health plan? And it was a conversation that this gentleman said that he had been having with his health plan clients where they're really redefining what is core to their business. I mean 10 years ago you would have said clinical operations was core to their business and now that's the fastest growing segment of ours. So I think health plans are also redefining, they're having that conversation constantly, which I think will lead to more outsourcing as they define what's really core to them, because they keep siphoning off processes and farming them out.

And lastly, how open would clients be to rewrite their processes to take advantage of Agentic AI?

Roopam, do you want to answer that? Page | 86

I think most of them are very open. But I think if somebody also brought in this thing of that contention on the legacy IT platforms or something. So think about it as a business organisation. You will always go for projects which will give you highest return and quickest returns. So many of them having legacy IT platforms is a big drive already happening where they're changing their legacy systems, because the IT cost itself was very high. So now you have, I mean while we're not saying that we are protected because of that, but that's also true. I mean, if the saving of Generative AI and platform change is higher, is delivering higher returns and quicker returns, then the projects which are operational projects to implement Gen AI and reduce operational costs will take the backseat. So you will go with the higher ROI projects first and it's happened in a couple of cases for us where we have a clear path for the ROI and client has a very clear direction that they will use that in the Phase 2, Phase 1 for next two or three years as they are undergoi ng a platform change, because that's giving them $10 million, $12 million annual saving. And ours is giving them $1.8 million savings. So there's no competition when that happens. So everybody is extremely keen to bring in Gen AI, but at what point of time depends on other competing projects which may deliver higher our ROI and quicker ROI.

Thank you.

So thank you again for everyone for coming. So we will break now for drinks and dinner, but we'll all be available outside so we can continue the conversation. Thank you.

Thank you, Ramesh. Thank you, everyone. Thank you for those amazing questions. I must thank our partners, CDR, Keystone and many of the teams that helped internally make this happen. All the teams at Sagility. Thank you once again. Let's continue this ove r dinner and drinks. Thank you.

This is a transcription and may contain transcription errors. The transcript has been edited for clarity. The Company takes no responsibility of such errors, although an effort has been made to ensure high level of accuracy.