Every figure this model derived for RNAC, 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
2,083,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
147,606,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
153,615,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
20,550,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
-125,226,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
ocf
-76,529,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
1,477,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
9,240,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
RNAC on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
7.48
current ratio reported
7.48
deferred revenue growth
-100.0
growth cv
2.83
revenue growth
43.96
revenue growth per share
43.96
rule of 40
-10474.59
sbc pct revenue
625.59
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about RNAC'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 -- operating margin came out at -10,519% against a scale that tops out near 2,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 1,477,000 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
diluted share count moved +50% in a year (17M to 26M, a ratio of 1.50), which is a stock split rather than issuance; growth is measured on total revenue, not per share
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 95M of net cash against a 79M annual burn is 1.2 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
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
no interest expense tagged while 53M of debt is on the balance sheet, so interest cover is unmeasured rather than perfect