Discover the catalyst
Identify the specific catalyst, the company mechanism it could change and the expectation already embedded in the market.
Methodology
The six-step Ledger Standard.
Every thesis follows this six-step standard across Science, Technology and Finance.
Model the impact
Test how market access, product share, financial impact, new-market entry or disruption could flow through operating and cash outcomes.
Challenge the thesis
Build the strongest opposing case and define the evidence that would weaken or falsify the conclusion.
Track the outcome
Timestamp the conclusion, preserve material revisions and measure what the evidence confirms over time.
Grade the catalyst
Apply the Ledger’s impact grade to the observed evidence, separating the size of the catalyst from the strength of the original thesis.
Follow the next catalyst
Connect each new catalyst to the prior record so the tracker shows how the company evolves and how the markets the theses are tied to evolve over time.
EVIDENCE STANDARD
Source hierarchy
Primary legal, regulatory, government, issuer and counterparty records come first. The order after that adapts to the question and sector: scientific and technical evidence carries more weight for scientific claims, while exchange, industry and reproducible market data carry more weight for financial and operating claims. The source-use label separately identifies reported facts, N-Ledger calculations, scenario assumptions and supported inferences.
Evidence treatment follows the claim, not the publication format. Reconciled segment data, contractual terms and measured operating results may support a scored company consequence wherever they are published. Management intent, promotional framing and unsupported interpretation remain leading indicators only: they do not prove completed purchases, deployments, revenue contribution or measured outcomes and cannot override filings, contracts or reported results.
- 01Regulatory, legal and government records
- 02Issuer and counterparty primary records
- 03Scientific, technical, patent, trial-registry and standards evidence
- 04Exchange, industry and independently reproducible market data
- 05Qualified specialist and trade evidence
- 06Clearly attributed secondary reporting
RESEARCH STANDARD
Research System and Human Governance
AI-Integrated workflows support public-record discovery, evidence organization, comparison, monitoring and preliminary checks. Automated output is a research aid, not an authoritative source or independent evidentiary basis. The written method guides agent-assisted execution; source evidence and professional review, not model output alone, determine the published conclusion.
Company engagements apply strategic evidence measurement to the decision under review. TEM measures subsequent evidence against a baseline and sets out what the result implies, the possible explanations and the next assessments that would tell them apart. ER prepares the claim and evidence record and a path guide for each material gap. CCI maps and follows relevant competitor developments and sets out conditional response options, including when doing nothing is preferable. Every recommendation names the sources that support it and says plainly when a needed input is missing; a gap in disclosure is recorded as a gap, never read as an operational failure.
Nyochembeng Nkengbeza, Founder & Research Lead, governs the methodology, reviews evidence supporting material conclusions, resolves material research judgments and approves published thesis and outcome conclusions.
WORKFLOW & TRACKING
From candidate to measured outcome
A sourced development enters Catalyst Radar for screening. Passed means it cleared that screen and remains under observation; thesis selection is a separate decision. A selected thesis states its decision question, expected signals, measurement window and evidence that could falsify it before the outcome is judged.
A dated company baseline records relevant starting facts, each with its period and source. Reported facts and N-Ledger calculations are labeled separately. Later checkpoints compare new evidence with that starting point. The Occurrence Ledger records whether the catalyst happened as framed—Yes, Partially, No or Unresolved. The Outcome Ledger separately assesses attributable company consequences against the original expectation; a neutral occurrence label or stock move alone does not set the impact grade.
MAPPING & EVIDENCE CONTINUITY
Follow the links, preserve the gaps
For a published thesis, the internal relationship map can connect the company and catalyst to relevant suppliers, customers, competitors, partners, people, places and institutions. Each accepted entry needs a source link, a defined role and a path back to the thesis company within three steps. A rule check rejects incomplete or duplicate entries. The monitor follows mapped entities for relevant developments; contextual mentions are distinguished from evidence tied to the catalyst. A mapped relationship identifies where to look, not proof that a company outcome occurred.
Evidence comparisons retain their source dates and measurement basis and link updates to the exact thesis and variable being followed. A changed period or definition is qualified rather than treated as a contradiction; silence alone does not establish withdrawal. Missing disclosure, unresolved links and pending or unmeasurable outcomes stay visible as gaps, not zero impact. Material later revisions create a new version of the record instead of rewriting the original conclusion.