DEEP ISOLATION NUCLEAR, INC. (DBHL)

Every figure this model derived for DBHL, 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	148,000	`PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment`	2026-06-30
cash	27,434,000	`CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue`	2025-12-31
current assets	20,944,000	`AssetsCurrent`	2026-06-30
current liabilities	1,893,000	`LiabilitiesCurrent`	2026-06-30
equity	19,666,000	`StockholdersEquity`	2026-06-30
interest expense	1,000	`InterestExpenseOperating`	2026-06-30
ocf	-11,357,000	`NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities`	2026-06-30
revenue	6,136,000	`RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax`	2025-12-31
sbc	1,303,000	`ShareBasedCompensation`	2026-06-30

The ratios

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

Ratio	Value
cash operating margin	-190.06
current ratio	11.06
current ratio reported	11.06
dilution pct	22.21
fcf margin	-187.5
interest cover	-13071.0
operating margin	-213.02
owner earnings margin	-208.74
revenue growth	-13.0
revenue growth per share	-28.81
rule of 40	-226.02
sbc pct revenue	21.24

What to be careful about

What this model itself distrusts about DBHL'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 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 rests on 4 of 5 inputs; not tagged: roic
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 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
3 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability, growth -- 55% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left