Every figure this model derived for ARTV, 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
1,678,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
349,394,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
352,276,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
14,581,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
347,502,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
ocf
-75,232,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
0
Revenues
2025-12-31
sbc
6,678,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ARTV on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
24.16
current ratio reported
24.16
dilution pct
117.23
revenue growth
-100.0
revenue growth per share
-100.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ARTV's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
revenue is annual, not TTM
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 349M of net cash against a 77M annual burn is 4.5 years
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 DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, contracted coverage, gross margin stability, cash flow stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
4 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, growth -- 85% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left
no interest expense tagged while 0M of debt is on the balance sheet, so interest cover is unmeasured rather than perfect