I'll work through this step-by-step, first identifying Bouygues' industry and then calculating the S&P-adjusted debt-to-EBITDA ratio.

## Step 1: Identify the Relevant Industry for Bouygues

Bouygues is a French diversified conglomerate. Looking at the provided industry methodologies:
- Regulated Utilities
- Oil and Gas Exploration and Production
- Unregulated Power and Gas
- Transportation Infrastructure

Bouygues does not fit into any of these specific industry methodologies. Bouygues operates in:
- Construction (Bouygues Construction)
- Real estate development (Bouygues Immobilier)
- Media (TF1)
- Telecommunications (Bouygues Telecom)

Since Bouygues doesn't fit any of the provided industry-specific methodologies, I'll apply the **general corporate baseline formulas**.

## Step 2: Estimate Adjusted_Debt

### Baseline Formula:
Adjusted_Debt = (reported_debt + leases + pension_deficit + guarantees + hybrid_debt_portion + other_debt_like_items) - eligible_cash

### Components from the financial data:

**Reported Debt:**
- Long-term borrowings (2023-01-01): €11,586,000,000
- Current borrowings and current portion of noncurrent borrowings (2023-01-01): €1,361,000,000
- Current overdrafts and short term borrowings from banks (2023-01-01): €418,000,000

Total reported debt = 11,586 + 1,361 + 418 = **€13,365,000,000**

**Leases:**
- Noncurrent lease liabilities (2023-01-01): €2,107,000,000
- Current lease liabilities (2023-01-01): €498,000,000

Total leases = 2,107 + 498 = **€2,605,000,000**

**Pension deficit:** Not explicitly stated in the data. I'll assume **€0** for this estimate unless there's clear evidence of pension deficits.

**Guarantees:** Not explicitly stated. I'll assume **€0**.

**Hybrid debt portion:** Not explicitly stated. I'll assume **€0**.

**Other debt-like items:**
- The company reports "Net Debt" of €7,440,000,000 as of 2023-01-01, which suggests there's already a net debt calculation methodology used by the company.

Let me verify: Net Debt = Total Debt - Cash and Cash Equivalents
From the data: Cash and Cash Equivalents (2023-01-01) = €5,736,000,000

If Net Debt = 7,440,000,000, then Gross Debt = 7,440 + 5,736 = €13,176,000,000

But my calculated gross debt is 13,365. The difference may relate to different cash definitions or other adjustments.

Let me use the company's reported Net Debt figure and work backwards, or use the more detailed components.

Actually, let me recalculate more carefully using balance sheet items:
- Long-term borrowings: 11,586
- Current borrowings and current portion of noncurrent borrowings: 1,361
- Current overdrafts and short term borrowings from banks: 418
Total = 13,365

But "Other Current Financial Liabilities" = 13 (small)
And "Hedging Instrument Liabilities" = 4 (small)

The company's Net Debt of 7,440,000,000 likely includes:
- Total debt: ~13,176,000,000 (slightly different from my 13,365)
- Less cash: 5,736,000,000
= 7,440,000,000

Wait: 13,176 - 5,736 = 7,440. So the company's gross debt is 13,176, not 13,365.

The difference (13,365 - 13,176 = 189) might relate to different treatment of certain items.

For S&P purposes, I'll use the more comprehensive debt figure including all borrowings and lease liabilities.

**Adjusted Debt calculation:**
- Reported debt (all borrowings): 13,365
- Plus leases: 2,605
- Less eligible cash: 5,736

Adjusted_Debt = 13,365 + 2,605 - 5,736 = **€10,234,000,000**

Wait - let me reconsider. S&P typically uses gross debt plus leases less cash. But I need to be careful about double-counting. The borrowings likely don't include lease liabilities (which are reported separately under IFRS 16).

Actually, looking more carefully at IFRS 16 treatment: lease liabilities are already included in debt if the company reports them separately. Let me check if "Long-term borrowings" includes lease liabilities or not.

Given that "Noncurrent Lease Liabilities" and "Current Lease Liabilities" are reported separately from "Long-term Borrowings" and "Current Borrowings", these are separate line items.

So total debt-like obligations = 11,586 + 1,361 + 418 + 2,107 + 498 = 15,970

Less cash: 5,736

Adjusted_Debt = 15,970 - 5,736 = **€10,234,000,000**

Or using the company's Net Debt as a check: 7,440 + 2,605 (leases added back to net debt) = 10,045? 

Actually, let me think about this more carefully. The company's "Net Debt" of 7,440 likely already includes some treatment. If we add leases to get to S&P-adjusted debt:

If Net Debt = Gross Debt (excluding leases) - Cash, then:
Gross Debt (excluding leases) = 7,440 + 5,736 = 13,176

Then S&P Adjusted Debt = Gross Debt + Leases - Cash = 13,176 + 2,605 = 15,781 - 5,736 = 10,045?

Or: S&P Adjusted Debt = Net Debt + Leases = 7,440 + 2,605 = 10,045

Hmm, but this doesn't match my 10,234. Let me recalculate with the detailed components.

Actually, I think the issue is that the company's "Net Debt" may include different cash definitions or other adjustments. Let me stick with the detailed balance sheet approach.

Total financial debt = Long-term borrowings + Current borrowings + Current overdrafts + Lease liabilities
= 11,586 + 1,361 + 418 + 2,107 + 498 = 15,970

Less cash and cash equivalents = 5,736

Adjusted_Debt = 15,970 - 5,736 = **€10,234,000,000**

But wait - I should check if there are other cash-like items. "Other Current Financial Assets" = 32, and "Hedging Instrument Assets" = 193. These might be considered near-cash or not depending on liquidity.

For conservative S&P approach, I'll use only "Cash And Cash Equivalents" = 5,736.

However, I notice "Cash And Cash Equivalents If Different From Statement Of Financial Position" = 5,318 for 2023-01-01. This suggests there might be a different cash figure.

Let me use the main "Cash And Cash Equivalents" = 5,736 as it's the primary reported figure.

Actually, re-looking: the company's own Net Debt figure of 7,440 is likely the most authoritative. Let me verify:
If Net Debt = Total Debt - Cash, and Net Debt = 7,440, Cash = 5,736, then Total Debt = 13,176.

But my sum of borrowings (excluding leases) = 11,586 + 1,361 + 418 = 13,365.

Difference = 13,365 - 13,176 = 189. This small difference might relate to different treatment of overdrafts or other items.

For S&P purposes, I should include all debt-like items. Let me use the component approach which is more transparent:

Adjusted_Debt = (Long-term borrowings + Current borrowings + Current overdrafts + Lease liabilities) - Cash
= (11,586 + 1,361 + 418 + 2,107 + 498) - 5,736
= 15,970 - 5,736
= **€10,234,000,000**

Or, using the company's Net Debt + leases:
= 7,440 + 2,107 + 498 = 7,440 + 2,605 = **€10,045,000,000**

The difference is 189, which is small (about 2%). I'll use the more comprehensive component approach: **€10,234,000,000**.

Actually, let me reconsider once more. The company's Net Debt disclosure likely represents their own calculation. For S&P purposes, we typically want to be comprehensive. Let me use:

Adjusted_Debt = 10,234 (from detailed components)

But I want to double-check: does the 13,365 already include some lease-like obligations? Looking at the line items, "Long-term Borrowings" and "Noncurrent Lease Liabilities" are clearly separate. So no double counting.

Let me proceed with **Adjusted_Debt = €10,234,000,000**.

## Step 3: Estimate Adjusted_EBITDA

### Baseline Formula:
Adjusted_EBITDA = EBITDA (reported or reconstructed) + adjustment_leases (if any) + nonrecurring_losses - nonrecurring_gains ± pension_adjustments ± joint_venture_proportional_EBITDA ± other_normalization_adjustments

### Reconstructing EBITDA from the income statement data:

From the data for 2022-01-01 to 2023-01-01 (FY2022):

**Profit Loss From Operating Activities (Operating Profit):** €1,872,000,000

**Add back depreciation and amortization:**
- Depreciation And Amortisation Expense: €2,228,000,000
- Depreciation Rightofuse Assets: €446,000,000

Total D&A = 2,228 + 446 = €2,674,000,000

**EBITDA = Operating Profit + D&A = 1,872 + 2,674 = €4,546,000,000**

Wait, let me verify this is correct. The "Profit Loss From Operating Activities" of 1,872 should already include the impact of non-recurring items.

Let me check: "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Recurring" = 1,962,000,000
And "Profit Loss From Operating Activities" = 1,872,000,000

Difference = 1,962 - 1,872 = 90, which equals:
Other Operating Income Non Recurring (93) - Other Operating Expense Non Recurring (183) = -90

So the recurring operating profit is 1,962, and the reported operating profit is 1,872.

For EBITDA, I should start from operating profit and add back D&A. But which operating profit? S&P typically uses reported operating profit, or adjusts for non-recurring items.

Let me use the reported operating profit and then normalize:

EBITDA from reported operating profit = 1,872 + 2,228 + 446 = 4,546

Or from recurring operating profit = 1,962 + 2,228 + 446 = 4,636

S&P typically prefers to normalize for non-recurring items. The non-recurring net is 93 - 183 = -90 (net expense of 90).

So normalized EBITDA would be 4,546 + 90 = 4,636? Or starting from recurring: 4,636.

Actually, let me think more carefully. "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Recurring" = 1,962 already excludes non-recurring items. So:

Recurring EBITDA = 1,962 + 2,228 + 446 = 4,636

Reported EBITDA = 1,872 + 2,228 + 446 = 4,546

For S&P purposes, we typically want to normalize. So we should add back the net non-recurring expense of 90 to get to a normalized figure.

But wait - the D&A includes depreciation of right-of-use assets. Under S&P methodology, when we add back lease-related D&A, we need to be consistent with how we treat leases in debt.

Actually, for S&P-adjusted EBITDA with IFRS 16 leases:
- Reported EBITDA under IFRS 16 already includes the benefit of not having lease operating expenses (since leases are capitalized)
- But we add back the depreciation of right-of-use assets and interest on lease liabilities to get to a "pre-IFRS 16" like EBITDA

Hmm, let me reconsider. Under IFRS 16, operating leases are capitalized. The operating profit includes:
- Depreciation of right-of-use assets (446)
- Interest on lease liabilities is below operating profit (62 in finance costs)

Actually, looking at the data: "Interest Expense On Lease Liabilities" = 62,000,000. This is in finance costs, not operating profit.

So operating profit already includes the depreciation of right-of-use assets (446).

For S&P-adjusted EBITDA, the standard approach is:
- Start from reported EBITDA (which includes the benefit of capitalized leases)
- Or adjust to a "cash" EBITDA by adding back lease depreciation and subtracting lease payments

Actually, S&P's standard approach for IFRS 16 is to add back the lease depreciation to get to an EBITDA that reflects the operating lease expense. But this is complex.

Let me use a simpler approach: S&P typically reports "EBITDA" as operating profit plus D&A, where D&A includes all depreciation. This gives a figure that is higher than pre-IFRS 16 EBITDA because lease depreciation replaces lease expense.

For consistency with the debt adjustment (where we add lease liabilities), we should also adjust EBITDA to reflect lease payments rather than lease depreciation.

But actually, looking at S&P's general corporate methodology, they often use reported EBITDA (with IFRS 16 benefit) and add lease liabilities to debt, which creates a mixed metric. Some S&P analysts prefer to add back lease depreciation and subtract lease payments to get "as if operating lease" EBITDA.

For simplicity and consistency with common practice, let me use:
- EBITDA = Operating profit + D&A (including ROU depreciation) = 1,872 + 2,228 + 446 = 4,546

Or with recurring operating profit: 1,962 + 2,228 + 446 = 4,636

I'll use the recurring/normalized figure as it's more representative: **€4,636,000,000** as base EBITDA.

Now for adjustments:

**Adjustment for leases:** Under S&P methodology for general corporates with IFRS 16, we typically don't make further EBITDA adjustments if we're using reported EBITDA with capitalized leases, because the EBITDA already reflects the "benefit" of capitalized leases (no lease expense in operating costs, just depreciation).

However, some S&P approaches add back lease depreciation and subtract lease payments to normalize. Let me check if there's specific guidance.

Actually, looking more carefully at the baseline formula: "adjustment_leases (if any)" - this suggests there might be an adjustment.

For pre-IFRS 16 comparability, S&P sometimes adds back ROU depreciation and subtracts lease payments:
- Add back: ROU depreciation = 446
- Subtract: Lease payments (from financing activities) = 441

Net adjustment = 446 - 441 = +5 (small)

Or using the interest + principal payments:
- Interest on lease liabilities = 62 (in finance costs, already excluded from EBITDA)
- Principal payments = 441 - ? or total lease liability change

This gets complicated. For simplicity, and given the small net effect, I'll use reported EBITDA with minimal lease adjustment.

Actually, let me reconsider. The baseline formula says "+ adjustment_leases (if any)". For general corporates under IFRS 16, S&P Global Ratings typically does NOT further adjust EBITDA for leases when using the "debt incl. leases" approach, because the EBITDA already captures the economics (lower operating expense, higher depreciation).

So Adjusted_EBITDA = base EBITDA + nonrecurring_losses - nonrecurring_gains + other adjustments

**Nonrecurring items:**
- Other Operating Income Non Recurring: 93
- Other Operating Expense Non Recurring: 183
Net nonrecurring expense = 90

To normalize, we add back net nonrecurring expense: +90

**Pension adjustments:** Not clearly identifiable. Assume 0.

**Joint venture proportional EBITDA:**
"Share Of Profit Loss Of Associates And Joint Ventures Accounted For Using Equity Method" = -30 (loss)

For proportional consolidation, we would add back the equity method earnings and replace with proportional EBITDA. But we don't have JV EBITDA details.

S&P sometimes adds back equity earnings and adds proportional D&A if material. Given small amount (-30), and lack of detail, I'll assume no material adjustment or roughly add back the loss (which increases EBITDA).

Actually, equity method losses are already excluded from operating profit. The operating profit of 1,872 is before equity method earnings. Let me check...

Looking at the P&L structure:
- Profit Loss From Operating Activities: 1,872
- Then: Interest Income, Interest Expense, etc.
- Then: Share Of Profit Loss Of Associates And Joint Ventures: -30

So operating profit is before equity method earnings. No adjustment needed for EBITDA from operating profit.

**Other normalization adjustments:**

Looking at the cash flow statement, there are various adjustments. But for EBITDA, the main items are already captured.

Let me also consider if "Other Income Recurring" and "Other Expense By Nature Recurring" are already in operating profit.

From the data:
- Other Income Recurring: 2,565
- Other Expense By Nature Recurring: 1,252

These are likely already included in the operating profit calculation.

Let me verify the operating profit build-up:
Revenue: 44,322 + Other Revenue: 76 = 44,398
Expenses:
- Raw Materials: 19,372
- Employee Benefits: 10,381
- Services: 10,572
- Tax Expense Other Than Income Tax: 639
- D&A: 2,228 + 446 = 2,674
- Impairment/etc.: 172
- Changes in Inventories: -61
- Other Income Recurring: -2,565 (income, so negative expense)
- Other Expense Recurring: 1,252

Let me try: 44,398 - 19,372 - 10,381 - 10,572 - 639 - 2,674 - 172 - (-61) + 2,565 - 1,252 = ?

Actually, this gets messy. Let me trust the reported "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Recurring" = 1,962 and "Profit Loss From Operating Activities" = 1,872.

For S&P-adjusted EBITDA, I'll use:
- Start with recurring operating profit: 1,962
- Add total D&A: 2,228 + 446 = 2,674
- Base EBITDA = 4,636

Then adjust for non-recurring items to normalize:
- Add back net non-recurring expense (183 - 93) = +90? 
Wait, non-recurring expense of 183 minus non-recurring income of 93 = net expense 90. Since recurring profit is higher than reported by 90, and we started from recurring, no further adjustment needed.

Actually, I started from recurring operating profit (1,962), so my base EBITDA of 4,636 is already normalized for non-recurring items.

But wait - should I use reported or recurring? S&P typically normalizes for non-recurring items. So using recurring is appropriate.

However, let me also consider if there are other adjustments needed:

From cash flow: "Adjustments For Provisions And Adjustments For Depreciation And Amortisation Expense And Impairment Loss Reversal Of Impairment Loss Recognised In Profit Or Loss" = 2,261

This includes D&A and impairment. D&A was 2,674, impairment was 172. But 2,261 is less than 2,674 + 172 = 2,846. The difference might relate to other items or timing.

Actually, looking more carefully: "Impairment Loss Reversal Of Impairment Loss Recognised In Profit Or Loss And Provision Expense" = 172. This is the net impairment and provision expense.

The cash flow adjustment of 2,261 includes D&A and impairment. But reported D&A is 2,228 + 446 = 2,674. So 2,261 is less. This might exclude ROU depreciation or include other items.

Let me not over-complicate. I'll use the clearly reported figures.

**Final Adjusted_EBITDA calculation:**

Adjusted_EBITDA = Recurring Operating Profit + Total D&A
= 1,962 + 2,228 + 446
= **€4,636,000,000**

Or if we want to use reported operating profit and normalize:
= 1,872 + 2,674 + 90 (net non-recurring expense add-back)
= 4,636

Same result.

Should I make any other adjustments?

Looking at the formula again: "+ nonrecurring_losses - nonrecurring_gains ± pension_adjustments ± joint_venture_proportional_EBITDA ± other_normalization_adjustments"

Since I used recurring operating profit, non-recurring items are already excluded. So no further adjustment needed.

For joint ventures: The equity method loss of 30 is below operating profit, so doesn't affect EBITDA based on operating profit.

I could consider adding proportional EBITDA from JVs, but lack data. Given small amount, ignore.

**Adjusted_EBITDA = €4,636,000,000**

Wait - I want to double-check one thing. Is "Profit Loss From Operating Activities Recurring" truly before all non-recurring items? Let me verify with the data:

"Profit Loss From Operating Activities Recurring" = 1,962
"Other Operating Income Non Recurring" = 93
"Other Operating Expense Non Recurring" = 183

If recurring means excluding non-recurring, then:
Reported Operating Profit = Recurring - Non-recurring expense + Non-recurring income? 
= 1,962 - 183 + 93 = 1,872. ✓ Matches!

So yes, 1,962 is the clean recurring operating profit.

## Step 4: Calculate Adjusted_Debt / Adjusted_EBITDA

Using:
- Adjusted_Debt = €10,234,000,000 (from detailed components)
- Adjusted_EBITDA = €4,636,000,000

Ratio = 10,234 / 4,636 = **2.2075...**

Let me also calculate with the alternative debt figure using company's Net Debt:
- Adjusted_Debt = 7,440 + 2,605 = 10,045
- Ratio = 10,045 / 4,636 = 2.1667

Or if I use gross debt from company implied = 13,176, plus leases 2,605 = 15,781, less cash 5,736 = 10,045. Same.

The difference between 10,234 and 10,045 is 189, or about 1.9%. This is relatively small.

Let me verify which debt figure is more appropriate. The company's Net Debt of 7,440 likely includes all borrowings less cash, using their own definition. If I add leases to this, I get 10,045.

But my detailed sum of borrowings is 13,365 vs company's implied 13,176. The difference of 189 might be:
- Different treatment of overdrafts (418 vs ?)
- Or other items

Actually, looking again: "Current Overdrafts And Short Term Borrowings From Banks" = 418. Maybe the company's net debt excludes overdrafts or treats them differently?

Or perhaps the company's cash figure in Net Debt calculation is different from 5,736. "Cash And Cash Equivalents If Different From Statement Of Financial Position" = 5,318 for 2023-01-01.

If Net Debt = Gross Debt - 5,318 = 7,440, then Gross Debt = 12,758. This is even lower.

Hmm, this is getting confusing with multiple cash figures. Let me stick with the most transparent approach using all clearly identified debt and lease liabilities, minus the main cash figure.

Adjusted_Debt = 11,586 + 1,361 + 418 + 2,107 + 498 - 5,736 = 10,234

Actually, let me reconsider if I should include all these items. S&P typically includes:
- All short-term and long-term borrowings
- Finance lease obligations (now IFRS 16 lease liabilities)
- Less cash and liquid investments

So my approach seems correct.

But I want to check: are "Current Overdrafts And Short Term Borrowings From Banks" already included in "Current Borrowings And Current Portion Of Noncurrent Borrowings"?

Looking at the balance sheet structure:
- "Current Borrowings And Current Portion Of Noncurrent Borrowings" = 1,361
- "Current Overdrafts And Short Term Borrowings From Banks" = 418

These appear to be separate line items. The 1,361 likely includes current portion of long-term debt and other current borrowings, while 418 is specifically overdrafts and short-term bank borrowings.

So total current debt-like items = 1,361 + 418 = 1,779, plus long-term 11,586 = 13,365.

This seems correct.

However, I want to verify with the company's own "Net Debt" figure. If their Net Debt is 7,440 and their cash is 5,736, then their gross debt = 13,176. The difference from my 13,365 is 189.

Perhaps the company's 13,176 excludes certain items like overdrafts or other minor borrowings. Or perhaps their cash in Net Debt is slightly different.

Given that S&P wants comprehensive debt, I'll use my higher figure of 10,234.

But actually, let me also consider: should I use the average or ending debt? S&P typically uses ending debt for simplicity, or sometimes average. The data gives 2023-01-01 figures which are ending 2022 balances.

Final calculation:
Adjusted_Debt / Adjusted_EBITDA = 10,234 / 4,636 = 2.2075...

Rounding to two decimal places: **2.21**

Let me also try the conservative approach with lower debt:
10,045 / 4,636 = 2.1667... → **2.17**

Given the range, and wanting to be comprehensive with debt, I'll use **2.21**.

But wait - I want to re-verify my EBITDA. Let me check if there's any other income/expense that should be included.

Looking at "Other Finance Income" = 91 and "Other Finance Cost" = 118. These are below operating profit, so don't affect EBITDA.

Also, I should verify: is the operating profit of 1,872 or 1,962 already including the "Other Income Recurring" of 2,565? Yes, these are part of operating activities.

Let me also check if I need to add back operating lease payments or make other IFRS 16 adjustments.

Under S&P's approach for general corporates with IFRS 16:
- Debt includes lease liabilities
- EBITDA is typically reported EBITDA (which includes the benefit of capitalized leases)

This creates a slight mismatch because EBITDA is inflated relative to pre-IFRS 16 (no lease expense, just depreciation), while debt is also inflated (lease liabilities added). The ratio tends to be somewhat comparable to pre-IFRS 16 if done consistently.

Some S&P analysts prefer to use "EBITDAR" or adjust EBITDA by adding back ROU depreciation and subtracting lease payments. Let me consider this:

Lease payments from cash flow: "Payments Of Lease Liabilities Classified As Financing Activities" = 441

If I adjust EBITDA:
- Add back ROU depreciation: +446
- Subtract lease payments: -441
- Net adjustment: +5

This would give Adjusted_EBITDA = 4,636 + 5 = 4,641 (very small change)

Or if we consider total lease expense vs depreciation+interest:
- Interest on lease liabilities = 62
- ROU depreciation = 446
- Total lease expense recognized = 508
- Lease payments = 441
- Difference = 67 (timing/currency/other)

Actually, under IFRS 16, total lease expense in P&L is ROU depreciation + interest. Cash payment is principal + interest. The difference between total P&L impact and cash payment is the principal repayment (which reduces lease liability).

ROU depreciation 446 + Interest 62 = 508 P&L impact
Cash payment 441 = Interest 62 + Principal 379
Difference: 508 - 441 = 67 = excess of depreciation over principal repayment

This 67 represents the "front-loading" effect of IFRS 16.

For S&P purposes, to get a "cash-like" EBITDA, we might:
- Add back ROU depreciation 446
- Subtract lease payments 441
- Net: +5

Or more precisely, add back the entire lease expense and subtract payments... but this gets complex.

Given small impact, I'll stick with reported-based EBITDA of 4,636.

Actually, let me reconsider one more time. The baseline formula says "+ adjustment_leases (if any)". For general corporates, does S&P make a lease adjustment to EBITDA?

Looking at S&P's general corporate methodology, they typically use "EBITDA" as reported under IFRS/US GAAP, with D&A add-back. For IFRS 16 companies, this means EBITDA includes the benefit of capitalized leases. They then add lease liabilities to debt. This is the standard approach.

So no lease adjustment to EBITDA is typically made. My 4,636 figure stands.

Final verification of numbers:
- Adjusted_Debt = 10,234
- Adjusted_EBITDA = 4,636
- Ratio = 2.2075 → **2.21**

Actually, I want to double-check one thing. Should I use the ending 2022 debt or average? The data shows 2023-01-01 and 2022-01-01. The 2023-01-01 is the ending balance for 2022. S&P typically uses ending balances for simplicity, or point-in-time. I'll use ending.

Also, for EBITDA, should I use the 2022 calendar year figure, which is what I have (2022-01-01 to 2023-01-01). Yes, this is correct.

One final check: are there any pension deficits I should include? Looking through the data, I don't see explicit pension deficit amounts. There are "Provisions" but these seem to be general provisions, not specifically pension. I'll assume no material pension deficit adjustment.

Also, are there guarantees or hybrid debt? Not explicitly stated. Assume none.

So my final answer is:

<answer>2.21</answer>