A finished study on a fictitious company, published so you can read one before uploading anything.

Avalon Telematics Ltd

No rating
Avalon Telematics LtdTechnology · Software and IT servicesFY2020–FY2026IFRS · NZDRun 1 · 6 Sep 2026, 16:44
Rating withheld
FY2026 · Coverage 35% is below the 40% floor · risk index 0.85
Verdict: mixed
Extraction coverage
58%
58% of the metric catalogue · grade C
Analysis coverage
35%
of the indicators computed · a rating needs 40%, a full reading 60%
Confidence
low
index 0.64 · no rating was issued for the latest fiscal year
Figures published
622
553 high · 39 medium · 30 low confidence

What would unblock the study

3 uploads · 5 analyses
The uploaded filings do not print the Income Statement lines that carry these 6 figures
Adds 6 line items and unblocks 4 analyses: Financial Strength, Interim, Manipulation Detection, Real Activity Cost Management
Highest impact
Upload a filing whose balance sheet prints long-term investments
Adds 2 line items and unblocks 1 analysis: Manipulation Detection
Share price and market capitalisation by fiscal year are not printed in a filing and can be entered on a re-run
Adds 2 line items and unblocks 1 analysis: Valuation
With these, analysis coverage is estimated at 43%–47%: enough for a rating, with reduced reliability.

Grades

The three readings behind the study quality grade
ReadingMeasuredGrade
Extraction coverage58% of the metric catalogueRating C
Analyses fully computed4 of the analysesRating E
Score qualitylimitedRating C
Study quality grade E: the worst of the three readings.Reporting quality V (I best, V worst)

What is missing

10 line items · sorted by the analyses each blocks
What is missing
Line itemWhere it is printedAnalyses blockedImpact
Gross ProfitIncome statement4critical
Cost of Goods SoldIncome statement3high
Long-Term InvestmentsBalance sheet, non-current assets2high
Extraordinary ItemsIncome statement2medium
Preferred EquityBalance sheet, equity section2medium
Operating IncomeIncome statement1medium
Auditor FeesNotes0low
Dividends PaidCash flow statement, financing0low
Showing 8 of 10Show all

Reporting quality

observable facts only
The observations behind the reporting quality grade
ObservationRead fromPoints
Audit fees moved +33% against the prior year.Auditor Fees−1
The filings state the accounting framework they were prepared under.Accounting Standards+1
24 restated figures move a reported line materially.Restated comparatives−2
The filed figures deviate from the expected digit distribution.Digit Distribution−2
Every published figure passes the statement identities it takes part in.Statement identities+1
90% of the published figures were not confirmed by a second reading.Re-read figures−1
Total −4 → grade V

Analyses not completed

19 of 23 analyses
Analyses not completed
AnalysisIndicators computedWhy
Financial Strength1 of 7
Missing: Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold
Income1 of 7
Missing: Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold
Interim1 of 7
Missing: Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold
Investing1 of 7
Missing: Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold
Manipulation Detection1 of 7
Missing: Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold
Margins1 of 7
Missing: Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold
Miscellaneous1 of 7
Missing: Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold
Real Activity Cost Management1 of 7
Missing: Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold
Real Activity Manipulation1 of 7
Missing: Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold
Smoothing1 of 7
Missing: Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold
Valuation1 of 7
Missing: Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold
Working Capital1 of 7
Missing: Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold
Working Capital Accrual Quality1 of 7
Missing: Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold
Accrual Quality2 of 6
Missing: Gross Profit
Assets2 of 6
Missing: Gross Profit
Bankruptcy Risk2 of 6
Missing: Gross Profit
Business Model2 of 6
Missing: Gross Profit
Credit2 of 6
Missing: Gross Profit
Discretionary Accruals2 of 6
Missing: Gross Profit

In plain words

AI-generated analysis · figures computed, not written

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. A little over half of the figures the analysis looks for were present in the documents supplied, and about a third of the indicators could be worked out from them, which is below the level a rating requires — which is why no rating was issued in any year. 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. So the weakness is not in the reading; it is in what was there to read. The overall grade is set by the weakest of three readings, and here that reading is how many of the individual analyses had everything they needed: only four of roughly two dozen did. Read the findings as specific observations about specific figures, not as a verdict on manipulation, which this study could not test.