Avalon Telematics Ltd
No ratingData quality
AI-generated analysis · figures computed, not written
How much of your data was read for 2026
| Measure | Share | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Extraction coverage | 58% | the share of the metric catalogue found in your documents |
| Analysis coverage | 35% | the share of the weighted indicators computed from your data |
With every upload listed below, analysis coverage would reach 43% to 47%: 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: low (index 0.64).
Held at low confidence because no rating was issued for the latest fiscal year.
Grades
Study quality grade: E, the worst of the three readings below.
| Reading | Measured | Grade |
|---|---|---|
| Extraction coverage | 58% of the metric catalogue | C |
| Analyses fully computed | 4 of the analyses | E |
| Score quality | limited | C |
Reporting quality grade: V.
| Observation | Read from |
|---|---|
| Audit fees moved +33% against the prior year. | Auditor Fees |
| The filings state the accounting framework they were prepared under. | Accounting Standards |
| 24 restated figures move a reported line materially. | Restated comparatives |
| The filed figures deviate from the expected digit distribution. | Digit Distribution |
| Every published figure passes the statement identities it takes part in. | Statement identities |
| 90% of the published figures were not confirmed by a second reading. | Re-read figures |
The figures behind the study
622 figures were published from your documents.
| Reading confidence | Figures | Share |
|---|---|---|
| high | 553 | 89% |
| low | 30 | 5% |
| medium | 39 | 6% |
What is missing
| Metric | Where it is printed | Analyses blocked | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Profit | Income statement | 4 | critical |
| Cost of Goods Sold | Income statement | 3 | high |
| Long-Term Investments | Balance sheet, non-current assets | 2 | high |
| Preferred Equity | Balance sheet, equity section | 2 | medium |
| Extraordinary Items | Income statement | 2 | medium |
| Operating Income | Income statement | 1 | medium |
| Auditor Fees | Notes | 0 | low |
| Stock Options Outstanding | Notes | 0 | low |
| Dividends Paid | Cash flow statement, financing | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cash | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Digit Distribution | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Governance | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Growth | 6 of 6 | healthy | — |
| Accrual Quality | 2 of 6 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit |
| Assets | 2 of 6 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit |
| Bankruptcy Risk | 2 of 6 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit |
| Business Model | 2 of 6 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit |
| Credit | 2 of 6 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit |
| Discretionary Accruals | 2 of 6 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit |
| Financial Strength | 1 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold |
| Income | 1 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold |
| Interim | 1 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold |
| Investing | 1 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold |
| Manipulation Detection | 1 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold |
| Margins | 1 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold |
| Miscellaneous | 1 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold |
| Real Activity Cost Management | 1 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold |
| Real Activity Manipulation | 1 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold |
| Smoothing | 1 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold |
| Valuation | 1 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold |
| Working Capital | 1 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold |
| Working Capital Accrual Quality | 1 of 7 | severely degraded | missing Gross Profit, Cost of Goods Sold |
Year by year
| Year | Rating | Score quality | Analysis coverage | Carried by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | withheld (coverage below floor) | limited | 35% | Provision for Bad Debt Relative to Trade Receivables |
| 2025 | withheld (coverage below floor) | limited | 39% | — |
| 2024 | withheld (coverage below floor) | limited | 31% | — |
| 2023 | withheld (coverage below floor) | limited | 27% | — |
| 2022 | withheld (coverage below floor) | limited | 14% | — |
| 2021 | withheld (coverage below floor) | limited | 21% | — |
| 2020 | withheld (coverage below floor) | insufficient | 11% | — |
What to upload next
| Action | Metrics added | Analyses unblocked |
|---|---|---|
| The uploaded filings do not print the Income Statement lines that carry these 6 figures | 6 | 4 |
| Upload a filing whose balance sheet prints long-term investments | 2 | 1 |
| Share price and market capitalisation by fiscal year are not printed in a filing and can be entered on a re-run | 2 | 1 |
Assessment
The study quality grade is E, decided by breadth rather than by reading quality. Four of the twenty-three analyses computed every indicator they read; the rest are short of income-statement lines the filings do not print. Coverage is the lever: no year reaches the floor a rating requires, and the first recommended upload targets the lines that carry the most blocked analyses.
Why these uploads
The ranking follows what each upload returns: the income-statement lines unblock four analyses between them, the balance-sheet line one, and the market figures 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. 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.