In the interests of helping a little I can provide an example...

In the interests of helping a little I can provide an example which, while it is not correct in the purest of terms, remains sufficiently correct for this purpose.

Prior to 2019 (or thereabouts) when a company entered into the lease of a building for, say, $200,000 per year for five years, there was no recognition of this future legal liability in the formal accounts which perplexed some investors (mainly banks).

After 2019, this lease agreement, in the initial moment, would be presented in the books as a "non-current" asset termed, usually, as "Right of Use" assets.
At the same time, as the other side of the equation, there would a current liability of $200,000 presented in the books as a "Lease Liability" (the next years lease or rent) along with a further presentation in non-current liabilities of $800,000 (the balance), again as a "Lease Liability".

During the first year, the cash payment for the lease/rent is placed against the $200,000 liability thus reducing it. These payments don't effect the P and L.
The P and L gets a hit when the Right of Use assets is amortized by $200,000. As a result, the EBITDA looks better than it used to (prior to 2019) because the lease cost appears below the EBITDA number.

Inside the Cash Flow, the Cash Payment for the years rent ($200,000) appears under the Heading "Cash Flows from Finance Activities".
Pretty boring - I get it. But the impact is that the gap between EBITDA and NPBT is much greater for companies such as this one, or retailers with lots of leased shop fronts.