Every figure this model derived for AIIOW, the value it took, and
the element in the company's own XBRL it was read from — so any of it can be checked
against the filing rather than taken on trust.
As at 2025-12-31.
The figures, and where each came from
This is the part no other screener shows. Each figure below names the XBRL element it
was read from, so it can be checked against the filing itself.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
160,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2024-12-31
cash
5,648,455
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-12-31
current assets
8,000,000
AssetsCurrent
2025-12-31
current liabilities
124,559,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-12-31
equity
-111,788,000
StockholdersEquity
2025-12-31
interest expense
9,802,000
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2025-12-31
ocf
-5,066,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
950,000
Revenues
2025-12-31
sbc
117,036,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
AIIOW on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
0.06
current ratio reported
0.06
dilution pct
8.12
fcf margin
-550.11
interest cover
-16.03
revenue growth
-92.08
revenue growth per share
-92.67
rule of 40
-16629.97
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about AIIOW's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, sbc pct revenue, owner earnings margin, net margin, ebitda margin -- net margin came out at -17,615% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 950,000 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
revenue is annual, not TTM
operating income is annual, not TTM
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2025-12-31 (242 days old, weighted average diluted); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
no forward EPS estimate; growth rests on filings only. Analyst consensus is not published in XBRL, so it has to be fetched from a data provider or set by hand in overrides.yaml as `eps_growth_2y`
quality DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, sbc discipline, owner earnings, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
valuation DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 2 inputs could be computed (ev sales, ev owner earnings not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
durability rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: worst year
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, growth -- 75% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left