Every figure this model derived for SRZN, 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
222,000
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2026-06-30
cash
102,039,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
109,400,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
9,011,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
equity
-218,665,000
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
ocf
-34,762,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
11,511,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
7,005,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
SRZN on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-322.5
current ratio
12.14
current ratio reported
12.14
dilution pct
155.12
fcf margin
-303.92
operating margin
-385.28
owner earnings margin
-364.77
revenue growth
-8.79
revenue growth per share
-64.25
rule of 40
-394.08
sbc pct revenue
60.85
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about SRZN's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
WITHHELD: net margin -- net margin came out at -2,885% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 11,511,000 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
no debt and no profit, so interest cover cannot be measured; scored on cash runway instead: 102M of net cash against a 35M annual burn is 2.9 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 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 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (worst year, 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: sustained growth
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability -- 35% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left