Why we always publish the reasoning alongside each stock rating.

I.A score without a story is just noise

It is easy to publish a number. An 88 out of 100 looks authoritative, fits in a card, and requires no defence. It is also close to useless on its own: two stocks can share a score for entirely different reasons, and those reasons decide how you size, time, and exit the position.

So the reasoning is published next to the rating every time. The score says how strong the case is; the reasoning says what the case actually is — and, more usefully, what would break it.

II.The four inputs behind every rating

Each rating is assembled from four independent views, scored separately so strength in one cannot quietly cover weakness in another.

• Fundamentals — earnings quality, revenue trajectory, and the direction of analyst revisions.
• Technicals — trend structure, key levels, and whether price is confirming or contradicting the story.
• Sentiment — positioning, news flow, and how the market is currently interpreting the name.
• Momentum — the strength and persistence of the move relative to its sector and the broad market.

III.When a thesis starts weakening

The most valuable part of a rating is not the moment it is issued, it is the moment it stops being true. We publish the conditions that would invalidate a call so you can recognise them before the score updates.

• The driver changes: revisions turn negative, or the catalyst is pulled forward or delayed.
• Price stops confirming: the level that defined the setup breaks and is not reclaimed.
• The trade gets crowded: the story is now consensus and the remaining upside is priced in.
• Correlation takes over: the name trades with the index rather than on its own merits.

IV.How we publish the reasoning

1. State the thesis in one sentence a reader can repeat back.
2. Show the score for each of the four inputs, including the weak one.
3. Name the catalyst and the timeframe it is expected to resolve in.
4. Publish the invalidation level, and update it in public when it changes.

V.Reading a rating in practice

A high overall score with one weak pillar is not a contradiction, it is information. A name that is strong on fundamentals and momentum but weak on technicals usually needs patience and a wider stop, not a larger position.

Read the pillars before the headline number and a rating stops being a verdict you accept; it becomes an argument you can check.

VI.Why this matters to us

Anyone can be right occasionally. What we want to be judged on is whether the reasoning was legible enough that you could disagree with it in advance — which is also why every position, including the losing ones, stays in the public ledger.