---

---

---

•	changes in general economic, business and political conditions, including changes in the financial markets;

•	consolidation in or conditions affecting the industries in which we operate;

•	any changes in the regulatory environment in which the Company operates, including, among other risks, the impact of pending competition law and regulatory investigations;

•	our ability to successfully manage ongoing organizational changes;

•	our ability to successfully integrate the Towers Watson, Gras Savoye and Legacy Willis businesses, operations and employees, and realize anticipated growth, synergies and cost savings;

•	the potential impact of the Merger on relationships, including with employees, suppliers, clients and competitors;

•	significant competition that we face and the potential for loss of market share and/or profitability;

•	compliance with extensive government regulation;

•	our ability to make divestitures or acquisitions and our ability to integrate or manage such acquired businesses;

•	the risk that we may not be able to repurchase our intended number of outstanding shares due to M&A activity or investment opportunities, market or business conditions, or other factors;

•	expectations, intentions and outcomes relating to outstanding litigation;

•	the impact of seasonality and differences in timing of renewals;

•	the risk that the Stanford litigation settlement will not be approved, the risk that the bar order may be challenged in other jurisdictions, and the deductibility of the charge relating to the settlement;

•	the risk of material adverse outcomes on existing litigation or investigation matters;

•	the diversion of time and attention of our management team while the Merger and other acquisitions are being integrated;

•	doing business internationally, including the impact of exchange rates;

•	the potential impact of the United Kingdom’s (‘U.K.’) government triggering Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, giving formal notice of the U.K.’s intention to withdraw from membership in the European Union (‘E.U.’), referred to as Brexit;

•	the federal income tax consequences of the Merger and the enactment of additional, or the revision of existing, state, federal, and/or foreign regulatory and tax laws and regulations, including changes in tax rates;

•	our capital structure, including indebtedness amounts, the limitations imposed by the covenants in the documents governing such indebtedness and the maintenance of the financial and disclosure controls and procedures of each;

---

•	our ability to obtain financing on favorable terms or at all;

•	adverse changes in our credit ratings;

•	the possibility that the anticipated benefits from the Merger cannot be fully realized or may take longer to realize than expected;

•	our ability to retain and hire key personnel;

•	a decline in the defined benefit pension plan market;

•	various claims, government inquiries or investigations or the potential for regulatory action;

•	failure to protect client data or breaches of information systems;

•	reputational damage;

•	disasters or business continuity problems;

•	clients choosing to reduce or terminate the services provided by us;

•	fluctuation in revenues against our relatively fixed expenses;

•	technological change;

•	the inability to protect intellectual property rights, or the potential infringement upon the intellectual property rights of others;

•	fluctuations in our pension liabilities;

•	loss of, failure to maintain, or dependence on certain relationships with insurance carriers;

•	changes and developments in the United States healthcare system;

•	reliance on third-party services;

•	our holding company structure could prevent us from being able to receive dividends or other distributions in needed amounts from our subsidiaries; and

•	changes in accounting estimates and assumptions.

---

---

i.	Equity includes (a) Ordinary shares $0.000304635 nominal value; Authorized 1,510,003,775; Issued 132,529,824 (2017) and 137,075,068 (2016); Outstanding 132,283,444 (2017) and 136,296,771 (2016); (b) Ordinary shares, €1 nominal value; Authorized and Issued 40,000 shares in 2017 and 2016; and (c) Preference shares, $0.000115 nominal value; Authorized 1,000,000,000 and Issued none in 2017 and 2016.

---

---

i.	The nominal value of the ordinary shares and the number of ordinary shares issued in the balance as of December 31, 2015 have been retroactively adjusted to reflect the reverse stock split on January 4, 2016. See Note 3 — Merger for further details.

ii.	Accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax (‘AOCL’).

iii.	The non-controlling interest is related to Max Matthiessen Holding AB.

---

---

•	The Company will adopt the standard using the modified retrospective approach on January 1, 2018.

•

We expect certain revenue streams to have accelerated revenue recognition timing. In particular, the revenue recognition for our Retiree Medicare Exchange is expected to move from monthly ratable recognition over the policy period, to the recognition upon placement of the policy during the Company’s fourth quarter of the preceding calendar year in the amount of one year of expected commissions. Therefore, upon adoption, we will reflect an adjustment to retained earnings for the revenue that would otherwise have been recognized during our 2018 calendar year since our earnings process will have been completed during the fourth quarter of 2017.

•

We expect our accounting for deferred costs will change. First, for those portions of the business that currently defer costs (related to system implementation activities), the length of time over which we amortize those costs is expected to extend to a longer estimated contract term. Currently these costs are amortized over a typical period of 3-5 years in accordance with the initial stated terms of the customer agreement. Second, we believe there will be other types of arrangements with associated costs that do not meet the criteria for cost deferral under current U.S. GAAP but do meet the criteria under the new standard. We are still evaluating the types of arrangements that might now have cost deferral impacts, however we expect this guidance to apply to our broking arrangements and certain consulting engagements.

---

---

---

i.	Includes $348 million in accounts payable, accrued liabilities and deferred revenue, $308 million in employee-related liabilities and $11 million in other current liabilities.

ii.	Includes acquired contingent liabilities of $242 million. See Note 12 - Commitments and Contingencies for a discussion of our material acquired contingencies related to Legacy Towers Watson.

iii.

Represents both debt due upon change of control of $400 million borrowed under Towers Watson’s term loan ($188 million) and revolving credit facility ($212 million) and a draw down under a new term loan of $340 million. The $400 million debt was repaid by Willis borrowings under the 1-year term loan facility on January 4, 2016. The $340 million new term loan partially funded the $694 million Towers Watson pre-merger special dividend.

i.	Represents individual in-process research and development (‘IPR&D’) software components not placed into service as of the acquisition date. These assets were subsequently placed into service during the three months ended March 31, 2017, were reclassified into finite-lived software intangible assets, and are being amortized in line with underlying cash flows or on a straight-line basis.

---

•	Human Capital and Benefits (‘HCB’)

•	Corporate Risk and Broking (‘CRB’)

•	Investment, Risk and Reinsurance (‘IRR’)

•	Benefits Delivery and Administration (‘BDA’) - formerly known as Exchange Solutions (i)

i.	This segment and the businesses within the segment were renamed to better reflect the nature of the services we offer.

•	First, to better align our business within our segments, we moved Max Matthiessen, which specializes in pension investment advice, to Investment, Risk and Reinsurance from Human Capital and Benefits; and moved Fine Art, Jewellery and Specie, which is a specialty broker, to Corporate Risk and Broking from Investment, Risk and Reinsurance.

•

Second, we recast operating income to better reflect the new segment reporting basis. As part of the further integration of our Willis Towers Watson businesses, we updated our corporate expense allocations to standardize our methodologies and allocate those expenses which are directly related to the business segment operations. Additionally, we revised the presentation of certain adjustments which arose from the purchase accounting for the Merger. Due to the long-term nature of these adjustments, which impact fixed asset and internally-developed software, we aligned the presentation within the respective segments and consolidated operating income, thereby eliminating a reconciling adjustment.

---

---

i.	Includes certain costs, primarily related to corporate functions which are not directly related to the segments, and certain differences between budgeted expenses determined at the beginning of the year and actual expenses that we report for U.S. GAAP purposes.

---

---

i.	Other includes salaries and benefits, premises, and other expenses incurred to support the ongoing management and facilitation of the program.

---

---

i.	Represents the preliminary reallocation of goodwill related to certain businesses which were realigned among the segments as of January 1, 2017. See Note 4 — Segment Information for further information.

i.	All in-process research and development intangible assets acquired as part of the Merger on January 4, 2016 of $39 million ($36 million at the date placed into service due to changes in foreign currency exchange rates) have been placed into service during the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and have been included as intangible assets acquired in this presentation.

ii.	Amortization associated with favorable lease agreements is recorded in Other operating expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income.

---

---

---

i.	Notes issued in Euro (€540 million)

---

•	Level 1: refers to fair values determined based on quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets;

•	Level 2: refers to fair values estimated using observable market based inputs or unobservable inputs that are corroborated by market data; and

•	Level 3: includes fair values estimated using unobservable inputs that are not corroborated by market data.

•	Available-for-sale securities are classified as Level 1 because we use quoted market prices in determining the fair value of these securities.

•

Market values for our derivative instruments have been used to determine the fair value of interest rate swaps and forward foreign exchange contracts based on estimated amounts the Company would receive or have to pay to terminate the agreements, taking into account the current interest rate environment or current foreign currency forward rates. Such financial instruments are classified as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy.

•

Contingent consideration payable is classified as Level 3, and we estimate fair value based on the likelihood and timing of achieving the relevant milestones of each arrangement, applying a probability assessment to each of the potential outcomes, and discounting the probability-weighted payout. Typically, milestones are based on revenue or Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortization (‘EBITDA’) growth for the acquired business.

---

i.	See Note 8 — Derivative Financial Instruments for further information on our derivative investments.

ii.

Probability weightings are based on our knowledge of the past and planned performance of the acquired entity to which the contingent consideration applies. The weighted average discount rate used on our material contingent consideration calculations was 9.39% and 10.76% at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. Using different probability weightings and discount rates could result in an increase or decrease of the contingent consideration payable.

---

---

---

•

Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs’ claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (‘SLUSA’).

---

•

Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085, was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the ‘JPML’). The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni. On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.

•

Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice.

•

Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300 million, attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court’s denial of their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action discussed below, and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert.

•

Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the Janvey action discussed below. Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.

•

Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors, individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the court’s stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court’s denial of their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral

---

•

MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately $4 million and attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance with the court’s September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague (discussed above)), which stipulation was ‘so ordered’ by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur.

•

Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four actions pending the JPML’s transfer decision. On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the transmittal of which was stayed for 7 days to allow for any opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward.

•	Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as Court-

---

•

Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages of less than $100,000, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks damages in excess of $1 million. The defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint in Martin.

•

Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:16-cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $135 million, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which, among other things, added several more Stanford investors as plaintiffs. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Abel.

---

---

---

---

---

i	Reclassification adjustments from accumulated other comprehensive loss related to foreign currency translation and cash flow hedges are included in Other expense, net in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income. See Note 8 — Derivative Financial Instruments for additional details regarding the reclassification adjustments for the hedge settlements.

ii	Reclassification adjustments from accumulated other comprehensive loss are included in the computation of net periodic pension cost (see Note 11 — Retirement Benefits) which is included in Salaries and benefits in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income.

---

---

(i)	Willis Towers Watson, which is a guarantor, on a parent company only basis;

(ii)	the Other Guarantors, which are all 100 percent directly or indirectly owned subsidiaries of the parent and are all direct or indirect parents of the issuer;

(iii)	the Issuer, Willis North America;

(iv)	Other, which are the non-guarantor subsidiaries, on a combined basis;

(v)	Consolidating adjustments; and

(vi)	the Consolidated Company.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

(i)	Willis Towers Watson, which is the Parent Issuer;

(ii)	the Guarantors, which are all 100 percent directly or indirectly owned subsidiaries of the parent;

(iii)	Other, which are the non-guarantor subsidiaries, on a combined basis;

(iv)	Consolidating adjustments; and

(v)	the Consolidated Company.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

(i)	Willis Towers Watson, which is a guarantor, on a parent company only basis;

(ii)

the Other Guarantors, which are all wholly owned subsidiaries (directly or indirectly) of the parent. Willis Towers Watson Sub Holdings Unlimited Company, Willis Netherlands Holdings B.V, Willis Investment U.K. Holdings Limited, TA I Limited and WTW Bermuda Holdings Ltd. are all direct or indirect parents of the issuer and Willis Group Limited and Willis North America Inc., are direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of the issuer;

(iii)	Trinity Acquisition plc, which is the issuer and is a 100 percent indirectly owned subsidiary of the parent;

(iv)	Other, which are the non-guarantor subsidiaries, on a combined basis;

(v)	Consolidating adjustments; and

(vi)	the Consolidated Company.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

i.	These percentages exclude certain expenses for significant items which will not be settled in cash, or which we believe to be items that are not core to our current or future operations. These items include Merger-related amortization of intangible assets, restructuring costs, and transaction and integration expenses.

i.	Components of revenue change may not add due to rounding.

---

i.	Components of revenue change may not add due to rounding.

i.	Components of revenue change may not add due to rounding.

---

i.	Components of revenue change may not add due to rounding.

i.	Components of revenue change may not add due to rounding.

---

i.	Components of revenue change may not add due to rounding.

i.	Components of revenue change may not add due to rounding.

---

i.	Components of revenue change may not add due to rounding.

i.	Components of revenue change may not add due to rounding.

---

---

---

---

---

•

Restructuring costs and transaction and integration expenses - Management believes it is appropriate to adjust for restructuring costs and transaction and integration expenses when they relate to a specific significant program with a defined set of activities and costs that are not expected to continue beyond a defined period of time, or one-time Merger-related transaction expenses. We believe the adjustment is necessary to present how the Company is performing, both now and in the future when these programs will have concluded.

---

•	Fair value adjustment to deferred revenue - Adjustment in 2016 to normalize for the deferred revenue written down as part of the purchase accounting for the Merger.

•	Gains and losses on disposals of operations - Adjustment to remove the gain or loss resulting from disposed operations.

•	Provision for Stanford litigation - The 2016 provision for the Stanford litigation matter, which we consider to be a non-ordinary course litigation matter.

•	Venezuelan currency devaluation - Foreign exchange losses incurred as a consequence of the Venezuelan government’s enforced changes to exchange rate mechanisms.

•	Tax effects of internal reorganization - Relates to the U.S. income tax expense resulting from the completion of an internal reorganization of the ownership of certain businesses that reduced the investments held by our U.S.-controlled subsidiaries.

•

Constant currency change - Represents the year over year change in revenues excluding the impact of foreign currency fluctuations. To calculate this impact, the prior year local currency results are first translated using the current year monthly average exchange rates. The change is calculated by comparing the prior year revenues, translated at the current year monthly average exchange rates, to the current year as reported revenues, for the same period. We believe constant currency measures provide useful information to investors because they provide transparency to performance by excluding the effect that foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations have on period-over-period comparability given volatility in foreign currency exchange markets.

•

Organic change - The organic presentation excludes both the impact of fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates, as described above, as well as the period-over-period impact of acquisitions and divestitures. We believe that excluding transaction-related items from our U.S. GAAP financial measures provides useful supplemental information to our investors, and it is important in illustrating what our core operating results would have been had we not incurred these transaction-related items, since the nature, size and number of these transaction-related items can vary from period to period.

---

i.	Components of revenue change may not add due to rounding.

---

---

i.	The tax effect was calculated using an effective tax rate for each item.

---

i.	The tax effect was calculated using an effective tax rate for each item.

---

i.	The tax effect was calculated using an effective tax rate for each item.

---

i.	As a result of the adoption of ASU 2016-09, cash flows from operating activities for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 increased by $13 million, increasing free cash flow by the same amount. See Part I, Item 1. Note 2 - Basis of Presentation and Recent Accounting Pronouncements of this Form 10-Q report for a further discussion of this change.

---

---

---

---

---

---

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)	Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and to the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)	Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and to the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

•	The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2017, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

•	The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.