CervoMed Inc. (CRVO)

Every figure this model derived for CRVO, 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 ratios

The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up CRVO on one particular measure came for.

Everything else this filing tags

400 more elements from CRVO's own XBRL that this model has no measure for, newest reading each, largest first. Nothing here is converted, added up or renamed — it is the filing's own element names and the filing's own numbers.

What to be careful about

What this model itself distrusts about CRVO'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 -- operating margin came out at -9,407% against a scale that tops out near 2,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 331,295 rather than a margin. The figure is absent rather than corrected: there is no right value to put here.
• no current capital expenditure tagged (last tagged 2017-12-31); treated as zero, so free cash flow is overstated and equals operating cash flow
• gross profit last tagged 2014-03-31 and no cost of sales line to rebuild it from; dropped from durability
• there is no operating profit to value; valuation rests on EV/revenue (28.3x) instead
• no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 25M of net cash against a 28M annual burn is 0.9 years
• analyst estimate not used: trailing EPS is not positive, so a growth rate would be meaningless
• quality DROPPED from the total: only 1 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, owner earnings, cash operating margin 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
• growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: margin trend
• 2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, durability -- 40% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left