Every section, every score, and how they correlate.

The single-line forensic verdict — does the company's narrative match what they actually deliver?

Composite of Execution and Aspiration scores, expressed as a gap. The wider the gap, the more the story is running ahead of the operating reality.

• ALIGNED (gap < 8)Words and delivery match. Quiet, often undervalued operators.
• HEALTHY TENSION (8–17)Ambition slightly outpaces delivery — normal for growth.
• WATCH ZONE (18–29)Narrative is meaningfully ahead. Expect promotional language.
• NARRATIVE DANGER (30+)Story has detached from results. High disappointment risk.

Start here, then drill into Execution and Vision to see which side of the gap is doing the work.

The live operating picture: credibility trend over time, who is actually steering the company, and whether they ship what they promise.

Three independent signals — Credibility trend (12-month line), Leadership Stability (0–100), and Initiative Success (0–100).

• Stability 85+Stable team, no recent senior departures.
• Stability 55–84Healthy to watch — some turnover or open seats.
• Stability < 55Elevated to critical — leadership turnover is material.
• Initiative success ≥ 70Most named promises closed the loop publicly.
• Initiative success < 50Many promises stranded, abandoned, or never reconciled.

Stability and Initiative Success are the two halves of accountability. Stability = are the people who made the promise still here? Initiative Success = did the promise get delivered? High stability + low delivery is a credibility problem. Low stability + stranded initiatives means promises were made by leaders who have left, and the company has not publicly closed the loop.

Whether the numbers behind the narrative are accelerating, flat, or quietly decaying.

Revenue growth, margin trajectory, and segment trends pulled from filings — scored 0–100 inside the Execution composite.

Pair with Vision: if aspiration is loud and Financials are flat, the gap will be wide.

Eleven forensic dimensions that grade what the company has actually done — financial delivery, narrative honesty, AI credibility, client validation, executive accountability, and four pattern detectors (abandoned initiatives, promise decay, moat laundering, acquisition deflection).

Each dimension scored 0–100 with an evidence trail; weighted into a single Execution grade A–F.

Compare directly to the Vision grade — the gap between them is the Margin-of-Truth verdict on the Summary tab.

How clear, differentiated, calibrated, consistent, and stakeholder-specific the company's stated story is.

Five dimensions weighted into a Vision grade A–F.

If Vision >> Execution, the company is selling a story it isn't delivering. If Execution >> Vision, the company is under-narrating real strength (often a value setup).

The arithmetic difference between Aspiration and Execution, plotted into one of four gap zones.

Aspiration − Execution. See gap zones on the Summary section above.

This is the headline number for valuation risk and disappointment risk.

Who is on the bench, how visible they are, and whether their public posture matches the company's claims. Departures detected from external sources are flagged here.

Per-executive grade: Fully Accountable, Accountable, Active, Occasional, Ceremonial, or Ghost.

The Leadership Stability score on the Intelligence tab is the cohort-level summary of this roster.

Concentration of decision-making, key-person dependencies, and bench depth.

Qualitative risk band with named single points of failure.

High succession risk + low Leadership Stability = the team that built the story may not be the team that has to deliver it.

What insiders are doing with their own shares — the unfaked signal.

Buy/sell ratio over rolling windows; outsized dispositions or 10b5-1 plan starts highlighted.

Cluster selling alongside a wide narrative gap is one of the strongest disappointment signals the platform tracks.

The specific, evidence-backed questions the forensic engine wants answered next.

Use these on earnings calls or in IR meetings — each question cites the gap or claim that triggered it.

Every filing, transcript, press release, and external signal the report drew from.

If you disagree with a verdict, start here — every score traces back to a citable source.