You may be right, but the result was presented with such...

You may be right, but the result was presented with such managerial poetic licence being taken as to render it almost not worth the effort. For example:

- No effort made to translate the like-for-like impact of rephasing of Reading Eggs on APAC ARPU. My guess is ARPU actually grew more like 4%, rather than headline 6%. Given that there's apparently very little subscriber growth across any of APAC or US judging by the last few years, a very large piece of the whole value equation is a clear-headed assessment of latent pricing power in their core Mathletics product...and management are deliberately obfuscating that.
- Backing out 185k ME licence renewal to show higher than actual EMEA licence growth.
- Quoting the US ARPU decline of 5%, based on post exchange rate effects, when the constant currency decline in ARPU in US was actually a more severe 8%. This point particularly annoyed me given that the UK figures were quoted constant currency (obviously as they assisted). The US business, frankly, looks highly challenged - ARPU is slipping suggesting no pricing power in highly competitive environment, no subscriber growth in two years, and they can't figure out how to distribute and sell product here - i'd be very skeptical of their plan to phone in sales from India into the US.
- How much non-recurring profit was banked in 1H via cessation of sponsorship of World Education Games? I see revenue slipped by $0.5m but marketing costs slipped by $0.8m, so that's $0.3m non-recurring EBIT they banked on that.
- Carrying value of Desmos torched by 2/3rds after investment only two years ago, and there's about five words in the results talking about that.

All too hard for me.