How our analyses work

Where the data comes from

• Financial figures are parsed from the XBRL data attached to the company's own 10-K or 10-Q on SEC EDGAR. Nothing is estimated or filled in: if a filing does not report a line item, we leave it blank.
• Analyst consensus comes from Finnhub. Consensus is quoted on the adjusted (non-GAAP) basis the market uses, which can differ from the GAAP figure in the same filing — where it does, the report states both.
• Valuation and calendar data (trailing P/E, expected report dates) also come from Finnhub. Expected dates can move until the company confirms them.

How the written analysis is produced

A large language model reads the filing's management discussion and risk-factor sections and extracts the points that moved the results. It is given the filing text only — it does not browse, and it is not asked for an opinion on the stock.

Every extracted point carries the filing section and page it came from, so any claim can be checked against the primary source. If a point has no citation, treat it as unverified and let us know.

How the fundamentals score is calculated

The 1-10 score is a fixed rule set over the filing's own figures plus the number of high-severity risks found in it. There is no model judgement in it. Each report shows the exact rules that fired under "How is this scored?". Starting from 5:

• Revenue growth adds up to 2 points, and a decline subtracts up to 2.
• Profitability adds up to 2 for growing net income; a net loss subtracts 2 and a sharp decline subtracts up to 2.
• Gross margin adds 1 above 50%, and 1 more for expansion beyond 5 points; compression beyond 5 points subtracts 1.
• Risk factors add 1 when none are high-severity and subtract 1 at three or more.

The score describes the quarter's fundamentals as filed. It is not a price target, not a recommendation, and says nothing about valuation or what the market has already priced in.

Why two EPS figures can appear

A filing's GAAP diluted EPS and the adjusted figure analysts forecast are different measures, and for companies with large one-off items they differ materially. Where our analyst comparison uses the adjusted basis, the report labels it and states the GAAP figure alongside it. On annual reports we do not compare the two at all, because the filing covers twelve months while the consensus figure covers a single quarter.

About the Chinese version

Chinese reports are machine-translated from the English analysis and checked automatically: every monetary figure and percentage in the translation is compared by value against the source, and a translation that changes a number is rejected rather than published. Amounts are written in the 亿/万 convention Chinese financial media uses. Older reports have not been translated and show the English analysis under a notice.

Limitations

Filings are parsed automatically, so a company using unusual XBRL tags can produce a missing or mislabelled line. AI-extracted analysis can misread emphasis even when it cites correctly. Nothing here is investment advice, and the SEC filing is always the authority — we link it on every report.

Found something wrong? We want to know: support@earningslens.ai