The platform
Connect evidence, claims, assumptions and valuation to the investment thesis. Inspect why a conclusion exists and what could weaken it as the research develops.
Illustrative company · illustrative data
| Indicator | FY22 | FY23 | FY24 | Observation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth | 6.1% | 9.6% | 11.4% | Accelerating |
| Operating margin | 16.4% | 16.6% | 14.2% | Compressing |
| FCF conversion | 74% | 71% | 63% | Weakening |
| ROIC | 14.1% | 13.6% | 12.8% | Declining |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.4x | 1.6x | 1.9x | Rising |
Base-case value per share
51
Range 42 – 61
Assumed margin recovery
+120 bps
Editable assumption
Implied exit multiple
11.4x
EV / EBIT
Scenario sensitivity
Evidence linked to this assumption
Illustrative data
The platform surfaces questions, evidence and alternative interpretations. The analyst determines their significance.
The analytical workflow
Each stage contributes to the same thesis, with supporting evidence, contradictions and valuation assumptions available for review.
01
Inspect the source passages behind each investment claim, then follow the claim to the assumptions that drive valuation. Retain conflicting evidence and unresolved questions alongside supporting sources.
02
The platform identifies business-model economics, segment performance, industry-specific KPIs, competitive positioning, capital allocation and principal value drivers.
03
Maintain a persistent investment case with explicit claims, named assumptions and a counter-thesis. Carry the research context forward as evidence and conclusions change.
04
The intended workflow keeps each challenge alongside the investment case over time: contradictory evidence, the analyst’s response, the evidence required next and a review status. Unresolved questions carry forward to the next review.
05
Connect operating drivers to forecast cash flow and valuation. Review how growth, margins and reinvestment shape each scenario; analysts remain responsible for approving the assumptions and the final investment judgement.
06
The intended workflow compares new evidence with the analyst’s existing thesis. Review what strengthened, weakened or contradicted the case, identify assumptions requiring review, and examine potential valuation effects before the analyst updates the status. The current MVP does not automate this process end-to-end.
07
Keep the evidence, valuation assumptions, counter-thesis and analyst decisions together for investment committee review and institutional investment memory.
The counter-thesis surfaces contradictions and questions that merit review. It does not claim to detect every contradiction or risk within an analysis.
Persistent counter-thesis
Record evidence that contradicts the investment case, document the analyst’s response, and define what evidence would strengthen or invalidate the thesis. This is an intended review workflow, not a claim of fully automated monitoring in the current MVP.
Open: evidence or a response is still needed. Resolved: the analyst has recorded a reasoned response. Requires review: new evidence calls that response into question. Resolution does not prove the thesis correct; retain the record and revisit it when needed.
Thesis ↔ evidence mapping
Follow a conclusion back to the claim, supporting evidence and valuation assumptions behind it. Keep contrary evidence visible so reviewers can examine what could weaken the case.
Source passages that support, weaken or contradict a claim.
An explicit interpretation of what the evidence means for the investment case.
The operating or financial inputs used to test that claim in a scenario.
How those assumptions affect cash flows, sensitivities and value.
The analyst's assessment of the case and the questions still under review.
Assumptions → valuation
Valuation belongs in the investment reasoning, alongside the evidence behind its inputs. The intended workflow makes the consequences of a judgement visible, from an operating driver to cash flow, value and thesis 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.
Approval and auditability
Make the evidence and assumptions behind a conclusion available for scrutiny. The analyst remains responsible for reviewing them and approving the judgement.
Connect material observations to their supporting evidence.
Review and edit the assumptions that drive financial and valuation scenarios.
See how inputs are transformed into financial indicators and valuation ranges.
Accept, modify or reject interpretations. Evidence review, approval of valuation inputs and the final investment judgement remain separate decisions.
Investment committee review
The intended workflow keeps the committee’s decision and date alongside the analyst’s thesis, supporting evidence, valuation assumptions, accepted risks and invalidation conditions. Record who owns the analysis and review, then retain the reasons for later thesis revisions.
A demonstration walks through evidence linked to claims, assumptions linked to valuation, analyst review and the evolution of a persistent thesis.
Request a demonstration