Atlantis Semiconductor Ltd
CompletedData quality
AI-generated analysis · figures computed, not written
How much of your data was read for 2025
| Measure | Share | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Extraction coverage | 74% | the share of the metric catalogue found in your documents |
| Analysis coverage | 71% | the share of the weighted indicators computed from your data |
With every upload listed below, analysis coverage would reach 74% to 79%: an estimate of the share of the weighted indicators these uploads would let the study compute, assuming the filing prints every listed figure for every year the analysis needs; a figure that arrives for one year only may still leave an indicator short of history.
Confidence in this study
Overall confidence: medium (index 0.78).
Grades
Study quality grade: B, the worst of the three readings below.
| Reading | Measured | Grade |
|---|---|---|
| Extraction coverage | 74% of the metric catalogue | B |
| Analyses fully computed | 17 of the analyses | B |
| Score quality | sufficient | B |
Reporting quality grade: II.
| Observation | Read from |
|---|---|
| The audit opinion is unmodified in every year read. | Auditor Opinion |
| The filings state the accounting framework they were prepared under. | Accounting Standards |
| Every published figure passes the statement identities it takes part in. | Statement identities |
| One prior-period line was restated, with the cause stated. | Restated comparatives |
| The filed figures follow the expected digit distribution. | Digit Distribution |
| 20% of the published figures were confirmed by a second reading. | Re-read figures |
The figures behind the study
1204 figures were published from your documents.
| Reading confidence | Figures | Share |
|---|---|---|
| high | 1120 | 93% |
| low | 24 | 2% |
| medium | 60 | 5% |
What is missing
| Metric | Where it is printed | Analyses blocked | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preferred Equity | Balance sheet, equity section | 4 | critical |
| Long-Term Investments | Balance sheet, non-current assets | 3 | high |
| Extraordinary Items | Income statement | 2 | high |
| Dividends Paid | Cash flow statement, financing | 2 | medium |
| Stock Options Outstanding | Notes | 1 | medium |
| Minority Interest | Balance sheet, equity section | 1 | medium |
| Deferred Revenue | Balance sheet, current liabilities | 1 | low |
| Auditor Fees | Notes | 0 | low |
| Capital Expenditures on Intangibles | Cash flow statement, investing | 0 | low |
| Share Price at Year End | Not printed in the filings | 0 | low |
How complete each analysis is
| Analysis | Indicators computed | State | Why not complete |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual Quality | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Assets | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Bankruptcy Risk | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Business Model | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Cash | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Credit | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Digit Distribution | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Discretionary Accruals | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Financial Strength | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Governance | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Growth | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Income | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Interim | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Investing | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Manipulation Detection | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Margins | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Miscellaneous | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Real Activity Cost Management | 3 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Long-Term Investments |
| Real Activity Manipulation | 2 of 6 | severely degraded | missing Long-Term Investments, Extraordinary Items |
| Smoothing | 4 of 8 | degraded | missing Extraordinary Items |
| Valuation | 1 of 6 | severely degraded | missing Preferred Equity, Minority Interest |
| Working Capital | 5 of 7 | degraded | missing Deferred Revenue |
| Working Capital Accrual Quality | 2 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Deferred Revenue, Preferred Equity |
Year by year
| Year | Rating | Score quality | Analysis coverage | Carried by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | B- | sufficient | 71% | — |
| 2024 | B- | sufficient | 74% | — |
| 2023 | B | sufficient | 72% | — |
| 2022 | B | sufficient | 70% | — |
| 2021 | B+ | sufficient | 68% | — |
What to upload next
| Action | Metrics added | Analyses unblocked |
|---|---|---|
| The uploaded filings do not print the equity-section lines that carry these 2 figures | 2 | 4 |
| Upload a filing whose balance sheet prints long-term investments | 1 | 2 |
| The notes to the accounts do not print the options outstanding at the year end | 1 | 1 |
Assessment
The study quality grade is B, and the three readings behind it agree: three quarters of the line-item catalogue was found, seventeen of the twenty-three analyses computed every indicator they read, and score quality is sufficient in each year. What is missing sits in the equity section and in one balance-sheet line, and it costs the valuation and bankruptcy readings more than anything else.
Why these uploads
The ranking follows what each upload returns: the equity-section lines unblock four analyses between them, the long-term investment line two, and the options note one.
In plain terms
This study reads the accounts you uploaded for signs of window-dressing or misreporting; this assessment says how much of that reading was possible, not how well the company is run. About three quarters of the figures the analysis looks for were present in the documents supplied, and a little under three quarters of the indicators could be worked out from them, which is comfortably above the level a rating requires. The figures that were present were read accurately: almost all of them with high confidence, all matching the text they were quoted from, and all consistent with the arithmetic of the statements they sit in. What is missing is concentrated in the equity section of the balance sheet, and it holds back the readings that compare the company with the market rather than the ones that read the accounts themselves. Treat the closing-year reading as a screening result on good but incomplete evidence.