Every figure this model derived for CDIO, 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 2026-06-30.
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
164,594
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
0
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
6,159,959
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
359,197
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
7,426,283
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
12,299
InterestExpense
2026-06-30
ocf
-5,659,843
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
14,450
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
97,930
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
CDIO on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
17.15
current ratio reported
17.15
dilution pct
95.47
growth cv
1.67
interest cover
-525.07
revenue growth
-25.92
revenue growth per share
-62.1
roic
-68.7
rule of 40
-44716.6
sbc pct revenue
677.72
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CDIO's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: operating margin, cash operating margin, owner earnings margin, fcf margin, net margin, ocf margin, ebitda margin -- net margin came out at -44,772% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 14,450 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
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 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, 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 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin stability 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, durability -- 65% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left