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.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
0
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2017-12-31
cash
24,938,172
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
25,992,471
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
4,656,117
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-12-31
equity
22,960,297
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
ocf
-27,977,672
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
331,295
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
1,301,923
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
CRVO on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
5.58
current ratio reported
5.58
dilution pct
12.01
revenue growth
-95.74
revenue growth per share
-96.2
rule of 40
-9502.7
sbc pct revenue
392.98
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
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
gross profit last tagged 2014-03-31 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: 25M of net cash against a 28M annual burn is 0.9 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 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
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
growth rests on 3 of 4 inputs; not tagged: margin trend
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