All Concepts
Derived SignalEmerges from analysis

Mitigation Credibility

Are stated risk mitigations genuine or illusory?

Assessment Spectrum

ILLUSORY
PARTIAL
MEANINGFUL
COMPREHENSIVE
BestWorst
About Derived Signals
Derived signals emerge from analysis synthesis when company-specific patterns warrant additional categorization beyond the core 11 signals. They capture nuances that the standard framework surfaces through rigorous multi-model debate.

Assessment Labels

Every analysis assigns one of 4 categorical labels to this signal. Labels represent a spectrum from best to worst assessment.

ILLUSORYWorst outcome

Stated mitigations are unlikely to provide meaningful protection. Terms may allow counterparties to exit, or scale is insufficient.

PARTIALConcerning outcome

Mitigations provide some protection but have significant gaps or untested assumptions. May help in moderate stress but not severe.

MEANINGFULPositive outcome

Mitigations are substantive and have been tested under stress. Provide real protection for moderate scenarios but may be unproven for tail events.

COMPREHENSIVEBest outcome

Mitigations are robust, well-tested, and cover tail-risk scenarios. Multiple layers of protection with verified counterparty commitment.

What This Signal Captures

Forward-flow agreement strengthMAC clause analysisStress-test survivalCounterparty commitment verification

Emerges From

This derived signal emerges from analysis synthesis within these lenses when company-specific patterns warrant the additional categorization.

How to Interpret

Companies often cite risk mitigations (commitments, agreements, hedges) without investors being able to verify their robustness. This signal assesses whether stated protections are genuine based on terms, counterparty behavior, and stress-test evidence.