Inspect the evidence
Identify the source passages supporting each claim and the evidence that challenges it.
The methodology
An auditable method for building and reviewing investment theses.
The research operating system connects evidence to claims and assumptions to valuation. A persistent thesis carries the analyst's reasoning, counter-thesis and review decisions forward over time.
Ten stages
From the investment question to the next committee review.
Keep the links between evidence, assumptions, valuation and analyst approval explicit at each stage of the research workflow.
01
Define the investment question
Establish what the analysis must answer before evidence collection begins.
02
Understand the business model
Examine how the company creates value, earns revenue and sustains its competitive position.
03
Identify key economic and financial drivers
Isolate the volume, pricing, cost, capital and cash variables that determine outcomes.
04
Formulate explicit claims and assumptions
State what the evidence is taken to mean, and identify the assumptions needed to test that claim in the valuation.
05
Connect each claim to supporting and conflicting evidence
Retain the source passage and publication date. Explain how it supports, weakens or contradicts a claim, and keep that relationship distinct from the analyst's interpretation.
06
Analyse financial quality and cash generation
Connect reported earnings with working capital, capital expenditure and free cash flow.
07
Construct valuation scenarios
Challenge and approve the operating assumptions, then carry them through the financial forecast to cash flow and valuation. Compare scenarios and review whether the consequences change the investment case.
08
Build and retain the counter-thesis
Record evidence that contradicts the investment case. Document the analyst’s response and define the evidence required next. In the intended workflow, each challenge carries an Open, Resolved or Requires review status, with the rationale retained between reviews.
09
Define risks, catalysts and invalidation conditions
Specify in advance what would prove the thesis wrong.
10
Review thesis evolution as new evidence appears
Compare each new disclosure with the thesis held at the previous review. Assess strengthened and weakened evidence, new contradictions or risks, and assumptions requiring review. Examine potential valuation consequences before the analyst revises the thesis status; retain the reasons for each change.
Uncertainty
Keep uncertainty visible in the investment record.
Zorev distinguishes among reported facts, calculated metrics, management statements, analyst assumptions and AI-generated interpretations. Outputs are not presented as equally certain.
Reported fact
Disclosed in a company filing or financial statement.
Calculated metric
Derived from reported figures using a stated calculation.
Management statement
Asserted by the company, and not necessarily verified.
Analyst assumption
Chosen by the user, and editable at any time.
AI-generated interpretation
An assisted reading that requires analyst review.
Thesis ↔ evidence mapping
Make each link in the investment reasoning inspectable.
Ask why a conclusion exists, which evidence supports it, which assumptions drive its valuation, and what could weaken it. Use those links to revisit the thesis when new evidence arrives.
- 01
Evidence
Source passages that support, weaken or contradict a claim.
- 02
Claim
An explicit interpretation of what the evidence means for the investment case.
- 03
Assumption
The operating or financial inputs used to test that claim in a scenario.
- 04
Valuation impact
How those assumptions affect cash flows, sensitivities and value.
- 05
Thesis status
The analyst's assessment of the case and the questions still under review.
Inspect assumptions
Follow a claim to the assumptions that drive its cash-flow and valuation scenarios.
Inspect contradictions
Revisit unresolved challenges, contradictory evidence and fragile assumptions. Preserve the analyst’s response and what evidence is still needed.
Inspect change over time
Compare the current case with the previous review and retain the evidence and analyst reasoning behind each status change.
Evidence review confirms what supports the analysis; valuation and investment decisions remain the analyst’s responsibility.
Reviewing valuation assumptions
Analyst-controlled assumptions. Transparent valuation consequences.
When an assumption changes, the intended workflow helps reviewers inspect which forecasts, cash flows and parts of the investment case are affected. Record why an input was revised and challenge the resulting valuation before updating the thesis.
- 01Assumption
- 02Operating driver
- 03Financial forecast
- 04Cash flow
- 05Valuation impact
- 06Thesis review
Illustrative example · intended workflow
Revenue growth assumption → Revenue forecast → EBIT / FCFF → Enterprise value → Investment thesis impact
With margins, reinvestment and discount rates held constant, a revised growth assumption changes forecast revenue, operating profit and free cash flow to the firm (FCFF). Review the resulting enterprise value alongside the evidence before revisiting the thesis.
Analysts approve, challenge and revise assumptions. Transparent consequences support that judgement; they do not guarantee a correct valuation or investment outcome.
From disclosure to thesis review
Review what changed, then decide what it means.
The intended workflow keeps the previous thesis as the comparison point. A stronger revenue signal can coexist with weaker margins or a new competitive risk; each finding may call for a different assumption to be challenged.
Record which assumptions need review, inspect potential valuation impact, and document the analyst’s decision to retain or revise the thesis status. This is a review method, not a claim of end-to-end automation in the current MVP; a new disclosure does not itself determine an investment decision.
Decision record and institutional memory
Retain what was decided, and why.
The intended workflow records the human investment decision and date with the thesis, supporting evidence, key valuation assumptions, accepted risks and invalidation conditions considered at that review. Analyst and reviewer responsibilities remain explicit.
Preserve that decision context alongside subsequent thesis revisions, with the evidence and rationale for each change. Later reviewers can distinguish what was known at the time from what arrived afterwards. This is an intended record-keeping workflow, not complete MVP functionality or an automated investment recommendation.
See the methodology applied inside the software.
See how evidence, claims, valuation assumptions and counter-thesis findings come together in an auditable research workflow.
Request a demonstration