Every figure this model derived for ZICX, 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
4,971
PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-12-31
cash
20,922
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2025-12-31
current assets
1,029,682
AssetsCurrent
2025-12-31
current liabilities
2,634,239
LiabilitiesCurrent
2025-12-31
equity
-2,086,877
StockholdersEquity
2025-12-31
interest expense
40,563
InterestExpenseDebt
2025-12-31
ocf
-19,194
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2025-12-31
revenue
732,850
Revenues
2025-12-31
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
ZICX on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
-46.86
current ratio
0.39
current ratio reported
0.39
fcf margin
-3.3
interest cover
-8.89
operating margin
-49.23
owner earnings margin
-3.3
revenue growth
947.26
revenue growth per share
947.26
rule of 40
898.03
sbc pct revenue
0.0
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about ZICX's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
every figure here comes from two filings (10-Q), so there is no annual report and no history behind it. A company that has just reorganised files under a new registration number, and what it reported before that is not part of this record.
only 274 days of filings, not a full year: margins and growth are measured, but return on capital and every enterprise-value multiple are refused rather than annualised
no current stock compensation tagged; treated as zero, so owner earnings are overstated
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
share count is from 2026-01-19 (223 days old, dei cover page); a stock split since then would make the market cap wrong. Set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml to be sure.
no usable diluted share count, so growth is measured on total revenue rather than per share; a company issuing shares to fund that growth reads better than it is
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 ebit, 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 1 of 4 inputs could be computed (sustained growth, margin trend, margin recent 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