Every figure this model derived for STI, 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
117,812
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-12-31
cash
27,677,315
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
28,443,515
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
19,429,104
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-06-30
equity
21,675,307
StockholdersEquity
2026-06-30
interest expense
16,627
InterestPaidNet
2025-12-31
ocf
-5,396,046
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
219,690
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
2,563,120
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
STI on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
1.46
current ratio reported
1.46
dilution pct
92.43
interest cover
-670.16
sbc pct revenue
1166.7
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about STI'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 -- net margin came out at -23,853% against a scale that tops out near 1,500%, which is arithmetic on a revenue figure of 219,690 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 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 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 (revenue growth, sustained growth not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
4 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, valuation, durability, growth -- 85% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left