Every figure this model derived for CLUS, 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.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
CLUS on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
dilution pct
490183.43
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about CLUS's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no current stock compensation tagged (last tagged 2017-12-31); treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2014-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
gross profit last tagged 2014-12-31 and no cost of sales line to rebuild it from; dropped from durability
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 0M of net cash against a 0M annual burn is 5236.7 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 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
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: liquidity
growth DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (revenue 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