People & context

Noted, and I will commit it as Phase 2 in the statement of work with...

a target window rather than leaving it open.

In writing.

Yes.

Put the quarterly review in the SOW.

Let me just...

Not as a nice idea, basically as an obligation.

We will

That wording is in. Signed version going out this week. Mit freundlichen Grüßen

"RELEX anticipates" is fine, it says the same thing. On the baseline, agreed, it cannot be defined yet. Can we word it as "a baseline to be agreed in writing prior to go-live of the fresh phase"? That gives your legal team a commitment and gives us room.

Marco, Legal have looked at it. They have taken out "Both parties expect" and put in "RELEX anticipates". They also want the baseline defined in the contract rather than agreed later. I have told them the baseline cannot be defined before we know what we are measuring, so that one is probably not going anywhere. The first change I think they will insist on. Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Robert, Lena, Draft wording for the value case section, per our conversation. "The primary value driver for this engagement is the reduction of fresh food waste, measured as a percentage of fresh net sales against an agreed baseline. Both parties expect a return on the initial investment within twelve months of contract signature." I have deliberately written "expect" rather than "guarantee", because delivery depends on data readiness and resourcing on both sides. If your legal team wants to tighten it, I would rather discuss than receive a redline. Also added: a quarterly business review with a written report, as an obligation on us.

Lena, I cannot, and I have looked. It was discussed in the June steering, it was not minuted as a decision, and we built the plan on it. That is our error rather than a misunderstanding. What was actually decided on Monday is two deliveries, not three: produce, dairy and chilled ready meals together in December, and bakery separately as its own workstream. That is what is in the go/no-go record. If anyone said three waves in the room they were repeating a plan that had not been agreed with you. I have asked Ana to reissue the plan on the two-delivery basis today.

Marco, In the go/no-go meeting on Monday it was stated that we had agreed a three-wave rollout for fresh. I do not remember agreeing to that and Robert certainly did not. What we agreed was fresh as Phase 2 in one delivery. Three waves means three cutovers and pushes the last one well past the ROI window, which is exactly the thing Robert has been saying since March last year. Can you point me at where this was agreed? Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Hello both, Following our conversation, a proposal for how we sequence Phase 2. Rather than delivering all four fresh categories together in one go-live, we would deliver produce and dairy first, then chilled ready meals, then bakery. Three smaller go-lives roughly six weeks apart. The advantage is that value starts landing earlier and each wave de-risks the next. The disadvantage is more cutover events and a longer total elapsed time, which I know is in tension with the twelve-month window. If this works for you we would build the plan around it. Happy to discuss.

25. The pilot was reduced in September 2024 and our plan was updated at the time. My note below was wrong and I will correct it in the deck before Thursday.

Is it 40 or 25? I have seen both this month.

Robert, Ahead of Thursday's review, the headline numbers are drawn from the pilot cohort of 40 stores over the ninety days since go-live. Marco

Hi Ana, It is March. Was this ever finished? I have not had the list Marco promised, and the document history point was still open when we last spoke in November.

Sofia, Understood, and you are right. I have asked Ana to remove it from the handover pack today and to check the project site. I will come back to you on where else it appears. I do not want to give you a list that turns out to be incomplete, so give me a few days.

Marco, Following the call yesterday. Putting this in writing so it is not just a comment in a meeting. The handover pack Acme-fresh-handover-v3, page 4, under key stakeholders, records against my name: "out October to November, surgery". I would like that removed. I said it in the demo in March 2024 because it was relevant to the project timeline. It was not said so that it could be copied into a document and given to consultants I have never met, eighteen months later. What I do want kept is that I am the only person at Acme who knows the fresh categories, because that is a real project risk and it is the reason I said anything at all. Please confirm when it is done, and tell me where else it appears. You said on the call that it would be in a few places.

Marco, Item 3.

Thank you, that is a good response to three. On item 4, I want to register a concern rather than an action. If you extract from a transcript and then delete the transcript, and the extraction has carried across something personal, you have made that permanent and removed the only means of checking. Please think about it before you run the backlog. Item 3 remains open.

Katarina, Responses to three of four. 1. Hosting is EU West region. It is named in Schedule 2 of the agreement. Extract attached. 2. The fifth sub-processor is Halberd Observability BV, registered in the Netherlands. They process application telemetry and logs. Processing occurs in the Netherlands and Ireland. You were not notified because our notification process only covered sub-processors handling primary customer data, and telemetry was not classified that way. That classification was wrong and we have changed it. 4. Retention period is set at eighteen months from creation, effective 1 May. The existing backlog is being worked through - commitments and decisions extracted into a record, then the underlying transcript deleted. I owe you item 3 and I do not want to send you a partial answer on it.

Marco, Following this afternoon, the four actions as I recorded them. 1. Written confirmation of hosting region and whether it is named in the current agreement. 2. The fifth sub-processor: identity, what they process, where processing occurs, and the transfer mechanism if any of it is outside the EU. Plus why we were not notified. 3. The erasure request made in November: confirmation that it is fully closed, with a list of every location the data was held. 4. A stated retention period for meeting recordings and transcripts, and a position on the existing two years of material. I would like all four within four weeks.

Robert, Indicative numbers attached. Summary here so you have it in the mail. Chain wide for the three fresh categories, 340 stores: additional annual licence of approximately 420 thousand, plus implementation of approximately 260 thousand one off. On your second point, and this is the honest version. The twelve month expectation was missed for one reason above all others. The value case depended on fresh, and fresh depended on a data field that we identified as a dependency in April 2024 and never obtained. Everything else largely went to plan. We built a workaround in September 2025 which works acceptably on fast moving articles and poorly on slow moving ones, and your category manager has been compensating for the difference by hand ever since. For the next number to be different, that field has to be available. It is not a RELEX deliverable and I cannot commit to it on your behalf, which is why I am putting it in writing rather than in a slide. If it is not resolved, chain wide will reduce waste by less than the pilot suggests, because the slow moving articles are a larger share of the tail across 340 stores than across 25.