diff --git a/context/MAP.md b/context/MAP.md
index f5e08be..f8130f8 100644
--- a/context/MAP.md
+++ b/context/MAP.md
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ skills/               Skill collection and skill-level documentation
   signal-sweep/       Discovery — scan the universe, surface tickers
   sec-edgar-skill/    Data — SEC EDGAR filings, ownership, 13F holders
   market-scout/       Data — price, peers, transcripts (Yahoo Finance)
-  bottom-up-analyst/  Analysis — one ticker → auditable memo (the conductor)
+  bottom-up-analyst/  Analysis — one operating company → scoped answer or memo
   pitch-like-lou/     Voice — finished thesis → VIC-style pitch
 context/              Agent-maintained project documentation
 ```
@@ -64,14 +64,14 @@ sessions, and unrelated settings remain profile-local and untouched.
 
 ```mermaid
 flowchart TD
-    SS[signal-sweep<br/>surfaces tickers] --> BUA[bottom-up-analyst<br/>deep dive + memo]
+    SS[signal-sweep<br/>surfaces tickers] --> BUA[bottom-up-analyst<br/>analysis + optional memo]
     BUA --> SEC[sec-edgar-skill<br/>filings]
     BUA --> MS[market-scout<br/>price / peers / transcripts]
     BUA --> PLL[pitch-like-lou<br/>renders pitch]
 ```
 
-- `bottom-up-analyst` is the brain and conductor: it decides what to pull, reasons over it,
-  and writes the memo. The data skills never decide what matters.
+- `bottom-up-analyst` selects evidence, reasons over it, and produces the requested analysis or
+  full memo. Retrieval contracts and source semantics remain in the data skills.
 - The two filing/market data skills know nothing of each other and are swappable.
 - `signal-sweep` and SEC-facing `sec-edgar-skill` commands read `EDGAR_IDENTITY` and use
   on-disk cache contracts defined in their `_common.py` modules. The SEC skill's routine 13F
@@ -80,7 +80,8 @@ flowchart TD
 
 ## Production order
 
-`signal-sweep` → `bottom-up-analyst` → memo → optionally `pitch-like-lou`.
+For a full thesis: `signal-sweep` → `bottom-up-analyst` → memo → optionally
+`pitch-like-lou`.
 
 For the package installation and isolated-profile workflow, start at the root
 [`README.md`](../README.md). For the collection overview, start at
diff --git a/skills/README.md b/skills/README.md
index 12396a3..0bcfb8f 100644
--- a/skills/README.md
+++ b/skills/README.md
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ they form a research pipeline.
 | **Discovery** | [`signal-sweep`](signal-sweep/) | Scan SEC filings and market data to surface new investment ideas. |
 | **Data** | [`sec-edgar-skill`](sec-edgar-skill/) | Retrieve and extract SEC filings, ownership, and 13F holder data. |
 | **Data** | [`market-scout`](market-scout/) | Pull prices, returns, peers, sector screens, and transcripts. |
-| **Analysis** | [`bottom-up-analyst`](bottom-up-analyst/) | Turn one ticker into an auditable investment memo. |
+| **Analysis** | [`bottom-up-analyst`](bottom-up-analyst/) | Turn one operating company into scoped analysis or an auditable investment memo. |
 | **Voice** | [`pitch-like-lou`](pitch-like-lou/) | Render a finished thesis as a VIC-style pitch. |
 
 ## Data flow
@@ -28,7 +28,8 @@ they form a research pipeline.
 ```
 
 `bottom-up-analyst` is the conductor. It decides what to pull, reasons over the evidence,
-values the business, and writes the memo. The data skills never decide what matters.
+values the business, and produces the requested analysis or full memo. The data skills supply
+the underlying evidence.
 
 `signal-sweep` and `sec-edgar-skill` are independent data sources. `market-scout` is also
 swappable: the analyst can use a different market-data provider without changing its
@@ -36,7 +37,8 @@ reasoning workflow.
 
 The voice skill renders from a finished thesis; it is not an idea generator.
 
-**Production order:** signal-sweep → bottom-up-analyst → memo → optionally pitch-like-lou.
+**Production order for a full thesis:** signal-sweep → bottom-up-analyst → memo → optionally
+pitch-like-lou.
 
 ## Progressive disclosure
 
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/README.md b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/README.md
index 95091e3..b779437 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/README.md
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/README.md
@@ -1,64 +1,55 @@
-# Bottom-Up Analyst
-
-An [agent skill](SKILL.md) that turns **one company** into an **earned investment thesis**,
-written up as a detailed, auditable due-diligence memo. It is the analytical engine of a
-bottom-up research stack: given a ticker or a name, it drives SEC-filing and market-data
-tools for grounding, reasons over the evidence, classifies the business into an archetype,
-triangulates an intrinsic-value range, tries to kill its own thesis, and writes the memo.
-
-## Where it sits
-
-The **analyst** in a three-layer stack: the [data skills](../sec-edgar-skill/) ground it, and
-[`pitch-like-lou`](../pitch-like-lou/) renders a pitch from its memo. The analyst is the missing
-middle — it decides what to pull, reasons to a verdict, values the business, and writes the memo;
-the data skills decide nothing and Lou assumes the work is already done. See the
-[stack overview](../README.md) for how the four compose. **Production order:** analyst → memo →
-(optionally) Lou pitches from it; the definition of done is a **pitch-ready memo**.
-
-## What it does
-
-- **Classifies** the company into one of six archetypes and loads the matching playbook —
-  *compounder, hypergrowth, cyclical, turnaround/inflection, special-situation, deep-value* —
-  so the right questions get the weight. (Lou's three value-investing shapes are a subset;
-  the rest extend past where he worked. "Anything else" falls back to the core method.)
-- **Normalizes** GAAP into owner earnings — maintenance vs. growth capex, stock comp, deferred
-  revenue, one-offs — and shows capital allocation as a year-by-year trend.
-- **Analyzes competitive position** filings-first (including *peers'* filings for management
-  commentary), using the web only for what filings genuinely can't give — and labels it.
-- **Values** by triangulation, weighted by archetype, with a **reverse-DCF** ("what's priced
-  in?") as a first-class lens alongside forward DCF, EPV, and multiples.
-- **Stress-tests** every thesis against the archetype's disqualifiers and a borrowed
-  discipline: separate what you *know* from what you *believe*, concede the weak points, never
-  let conviction outrun the evidence.
-
-## Layout
-
-- `SKILL.md` — the skill itself (the entry point an agent loads): the loop, archetype routing,
-  how it drives the tools, and the valuation tooling.
-- `references/` — lazily-loaded guides: the memo template, normalization, competitive analysis,
-  valuation, ownership signals, and one playbook per archetype (`references/archetypes/`).
-- `scripts/` — thin, self-documenting valuation tools:
-  - `dcf.py` — two-stage DCF, **forward** (assumptions → intrinsic value) and **reverse**
-    (price → implied growth), with a bear/base/bull sensitivity table.
-  - `epv.py` — Earnings Power Value, the no-growth floor.
-
-## Setup
-
-The valuation scripts are pure-Python (standard library only) — no install needed:
-
-```bash
-python scripts/dcf.py --help
-python scripts/epv.py --help
-```
-
-For the data layer, install and configure [`sec-edgar-skill`](../sec-edgar-skill/) (it needs an
-`EDGAR_IDENTITY`) and, for market data, [`market-scout`](../market-scout/); this skill drives
-those tools but does not re-document them.
-
-## A note on scope
-
-This skill produces analysis, not advice. It is a tool for doing research rigorously and
-honestly; it does not know your circumstances and nothing it writes is a recommendation to buy
-or sell a security. Its entire design — the honesty markup, the pre-mortem, the
-verified-vs-assumed tagging — exists to keep an LLM's fluent prose tethered to evidence, so
-that a human can audit every claim and reach their own judgment.
+# Bottom-Up Analyst
+
+An [agent skill](SKILL.md) for substantive, long-only fundamental research on one
+non-financial operating company. It turns filing, market, industry, and ownership evidence
+into a scoped answer or a full, auditable due-diligence memo.
+
+The framework is designed for companies whose operating economics and cash flows can be
+underwritten. It is not the primary framework for banks, insurers, REITs, funds, or
+predominantly binary-asset companies.
+
+## What it does
+
+- Scales the work to the question instead of forcing every request into a full memo.
+- Selects one or more optional analytical lenses: compounder, hypergrowth, cyclical,
+  turnaround, special situation, or deep value.
+- Reconciles reported results to normalized economics without double-counting stock
+  compensation, leases, working capital, or enterprise-to-equity adjustments.
+- Underwrites competitive position, management incentives, ownership, and governance when
+  they are material to value.
+- Chooses valuation methods for the business rather than mechanically running every method.
+- Separates verified evidence, estimates, assumptions, and external evidence, with citations.
+- Builds the strongest countercase and lets conviction fall when evidence is incomplete.
+
+## Layout
+
+- `SKILL.md` — workflow, evidence discipline, resource routing, and script examples.
+- `references/memo_template.md` — adaptable full-memo skeleton.
+- `references/guide_*.md` — normalization, competition, valuation, and
+  ownership/governance guidance.
+- `references/archetypes/` — optional playbooks for six common thesis shapes.
+- `scripts/dcf.py` — forward, explicit-forecast, and reverse enterprise DCF.
+- `scripts/epv.py` — no-growth Earnings Power Value arithmetic.
+
+## Setup
+
+The valuation scripts use only the Python standard library:
+
+```bash
+python scripts/dcf.py --help
+python scripts/epv.py --help
+```
+
+They require material assumptions explicitly. `dcf.py` accepts free cash flow to the firm
+(FCFF), discounts it at WACC, and bridges enterprise value to equity using net claims: debt and
+other senior claims less non-operating assets.
+
+Install and configure [`sec-edgar-skill`](../sec-edgar-skill/) for SEC evidence and
+[`market-scout`](../market-scout/) for market data and transcripts. Each data skill owns its
+runtime, cache, and source instructions.
+
+## Scope and judgment
+
+This skill supports research, not personalized investment advice. Its memo is an auditable
+argument rather than a recommendation tailored to a person's circumstances. A human remains
+responsible for checking the evidence, assumptions, suitability, and decision.
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/SKILL.md b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/SKILL.md
index 4158480..d66ce1c 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/SKILL.md
@@ -1,279 +1,183 @@
----
-name: bottom-up-analyst
-description: >-
-  Run a rigorous bottom-up fundamental deep dive on a single company and produce a
-  pitch-ready investment memo. Use this skill whenever the user hands you one stock — a
-  ticker or a name — and wants real due diligence: an investment thesis, a long/short
-  case, "is this a buy?", a valuation, a bull/bear teardown, an earnings-quality check, or
-  a full research write-up. Reach for it any time the task is "research this company",
-  "should I own this", "what do you think of X", or "do a deep dive on Y" — even if
-  neither "memo" nor "valuation" is said out loud.
----
-
-# Bottom-Up Analyst
-
-This skill is the **analyst** in a three-layer research stack. It turns *one name* into an
-*earned thesis*, written up as a detailed, auditable investment memo that a reader can act
-on. It does the work that sits between raw data and a finished pitch - the work of actually
-deciding what the numbers mean.
-
-## Where this sits - the seam with the other two skills
-
-A bottom-up stack has three jobs, and they are deliberately kept separate:
-
-- **The hands** - `sec-edgar-skill` (SEC filings and 13F institutional holder data) and
-  `market-scout` (price, returns, the peer set, and earnings call transcripts):
-  unopinionated data/tools layers. They fetch and extract token-efficiently; they *never*
-  decide what matters.
-- **The analyst - this skill.** It is both **the brain and the conductor.** It decides
-  *what* to pull and *why*, reasons over it, values the business, stress-tests the
-  conclusion, and writes the memo. The agent that chooses the evidence and the agent that
-  judges it are the same agent - that is how real analysts work, and why this layer drives
-  the tools rather than waiting to be handed numbers.
-- **The voice** - `pitch-like-lou`: renders a *pitch* from a finished thesis. Short,
-  compelling, "a pitch with conditions." A reader hooked by the pitch drops into **this
-  skill's memo** for the full due diligence behind it.
-
-So the production order is: **analyst → memo → (optionally) Lou pitches from it.** You
-produce the substance. You do not need to invoke the voice skill yourself; your job is to
-make the memo *pitch-ready* - complete and honest enough that a pitch can stand on it
-without inventing anything.
-
-## The prime directive: conviction must be earned, never manufactured
-
-Every conclusion in the memo must trace to something you actually verified in a document
-or computed yourself. This is not a style note - it is the whole point. A confident memo
-built on an unchecked assumption is worse than no memo, because it *launders a guess into a
-recommendation*.
-
-The quality gate that prevents this is **Lou's honesty gate** - separate what you *know*
-from what you *believe*, concede the weak points out loud, tag second-hand claims as
-second-hand, and demand a margin of safety that survives the bad parts (governance,
-dilution, cyclical risk). It is a **necessary condition on every memo regardless of company
-type**. The gate lives in one place - `pitch-like-lou`, "the one inviolable rule" (with the
-MCI QUIPS cautionary tale of a thesis nearly sunk by an unverified third-hand claim). Read
-it there; apply it to every memo here.
-
-Lou's gate is *necessary but not sufficient.* It does **not** dictate the analysis - this
-skill researches companies Lou never touched (hypergrowth tech, regulatory-tailwind
-inflections, turnarounds). The *method* below supplies the sufficiency; Lou's temperament
-supplies the honesty.
-
-## The loop
-
-Work through these phases in order, but let the **archetype** decide where the weight goes -
-a hypergrowth name lives in phases 3 and 6; a cyclical in 4; a special-situation in 5 and 7.
-
-1. **Orient and scope - filings first, always, before any web search.** Run
-   `sec-edgar-skill`'s `scripts/orient.py` as the **very first tool call** - before web
-   search, before `market-scout`, before anything else. This is non-negotiable even when the
-   user describes breaking news ("just reported," "a few hours ago," "announced today").
-   orient.py takes seconds and immediately shows you what was filed today; a web search for
-   the same information is slower, less authoritative, and often wrong about the company.
-
-   **Breaking-news pattern:** if the user mentions a same-day event, orient.py will show the
-   8-K filed today. Pull it and its press-release exhibit (Exhibit 99.1) via `sec-edgar-skill`,
-   which documents the exact breaking-news fetch sequence. That exhibit is the primary
-   source; read it rather than web-searching for what it contains.
-
-   After orient, read the latest **annual report** (10-K, or 20-F for an FPI) - its business
-   section and MD&A - and skim the most recent **interim/current** reports (10-Q/8-K, or 6-K
-   for an FPI) to learn, in the company's own words, *how it makes money.* You cannot value a
-   business you cannot explain in one plain sentence. Pull the market snapshot (price, market
-   cap, **the peer set**, sector) from `market-scout` to frame size and comps - orientation,
-   not evidence.
-
-   **Pull the latest earnings call transcript** via `market-scout`, then read or grep it.
-   The transcript is a **primary source** — management's own words on guidance, strategy,
-   and tone. The Q&A section is especially valuable: analyst questions often target exactly
-   the weak points you need to stress-test in phase 6.
-
-2. **Classify the archetype.** Almost every company is dominated by one shape, and the
-   shape decides which DD emphases, metrics, disqualifiers, and valuation method carry the
-   weight. Pick one primary archetype (a secondary is fine) and **load that playbook** from
-   `references/archetypes/`. See the routing table below. When nothing fits cleanly, the
-   core spine here is the fallback - reason from first principles.
-
-3. **Reconstruct the normalized economics.** GAAP rarely shows the real earning power.
-   Drive `sec-edgar-skill` to pull the statements (XBRL → CSV), then *un-distort* them:
-   separate maintenance from growth capex, pull deferred revenue back into the picture, undo
-   one-offs, treat stock-comp and leases honestly, build owner earnings / FCF. Show capital
-   allocation as a **year-by-year table** (share count, debt, reinvestment, returns on it) -
-   a trend persuades where a single number cannot. See `references/guide_normalization.md`.
-
-   **When the thesis depends on a new revenue stream** - a pre-revenue JV, a partnership
-   product, a market entry unlocked by regulation, a post-restructuring margin profile -
-   build a **unit-economics bridge** from per-unit inputs (price, cost, volume) to the
-   stream's FCF contribution. A management TAM estimate plugged into a DCF growth rate is
-   not a model; it launders a guess into a valuation. The bridge makes the assumption
-   auditable: a reader who disagrees with your per-unit fee or customer count can re-run
-   the math. See `references/guide_normalization.md` § "When the thesis depends on a new
-   revenue stream."
-
-4. **Read the competitive and industry position.** A number is only as good as the moat
-   under it. Establish industry structure, the company's place in it, and - the hard part -
-   *relative* competitive advantage. **SEC filings are the default and the grounding**: the
-   10-K's competition and risk-factor sections, and crucially the **peers' own filings**
-   (their 8-Ks, 10-Qs, 10-Ks) for management commentary, pricing, and sentiment you can
-   cite. **Peers' earnings call transcripts** are equally valuable primary sources - a
-   competitor's CEO discussing pricing pressure, capacity additions, or market-share wins
-   on their own call is citable competitive intelligence - pull peer transcripts via
-   `market-scout` and grep the cached file for the subject company's name, the product
-   category, or pricing language. Use **web research only for what filings and transcripts genuinely
-   cannot give you** - relative positioning, market-share dynamics, channel/customer
-   checks - and label every web claim as such. See `references/guide_competitive.md`.
-
-   **Quantify impact, don't just list forces.** Every competitive strength, threat, and
-   moat mechanism must be *sized* - how big, how fast it's moving, and the dollar impact
-   on this company. A force you can't size is one you haven't understood. See
-   `guide_competitive.md` § "Quantify impact" for the full framework and examples.
-
-5. **Value it - by triangulation, weighted by archetype.** Never a single point estimate.
-   Converge on an intrinsic-value *range* from independent lenses, weighted by what the
-   archetype makes trustworthy: a **reverse-DCF** ("what growth/margin does today's price
-   already imply, and is that achievable?") is first-class - especially for hypergrowth,
-   where it is often the *only* honest lens - alongside a forward DCF, an EPV no-growth
-   floor, and peer multiples. End with an explicit **margin of safety**. Use the bundled
-   `scripts/` and `references/guide_valuation.md`.
-
-   **Discount rate: reason it, don't default it.** Derive the discount rate from the
-   business's actual risk profile - never default to 10% or 12%. The memo's valuation
-   section **must** include a "Discount Rate Derivation" subsection. See
-   `references/guide_valuation.md` § "Discount rate" for the full methodology.
-
-6. **Try to kill it - pre-mortem.** Assume it's a year later and the thesis failed; write
-   down why. Run the **archetype's disqualifiers** (each playbook lists them) *and* Lou's
-   honesty gate (above). Most candidates should die here or get marked down - that is the
-   system working, not failing. Re-tag every surviving claim as verified vs. assumed.
-
-   Before finalising the risk assessment, read the **ownership signal**: pull institutional
-   (13F) and insider (Form 4) data via `sec-edgar-skill`, then interpret it against the
-   thesis. This is where adverse selection surfaces - a concentrated holder base that can
-   crater the float, smart money accumulating or quietly exiting, insiders buying with their
-   own capital or selling into your long. Account for every cluster buy and every
-   discretionary senior-officer sale; a signal you skip is a risk you took blind. See
-   `references/guide_ownership_signals.md` for how to read each pattern (13F reports stale
-   quarter-end prices, so use the **share counts** and divide by shares outstanding from the
-   `market-scout` snapshot for ownership %).
-
-7. **Reach a verdict at the conviction the work supports.** State the call - **Long /
-   Short / Pass / Watch** - with an honest conviction level, the **variant perception**
-   (what you believe that the market doesn't, and why you're right), the catalysts or
-   monitorables that would confirm or break it, and the margin of safety. If the digging was
-   thin, say so and dial conviction down; a hedged verdict is still a verdict.
-
-8. **Write the memo.** Render everything into the standard-DD structure in
-   `references/memo_template.md`. The memo *is* the deliverable; pitch-ready is the
-   definition of done.
-
-## Archetype routing
-
-Classify in phase 2, then load exactly one playbook (Lou's three shapes are the
-value-investing subset; the rest extend past where he worked). Read only the one in play -
-each is loaded lazily so you carry just the lens you need.
-
-| If the company is primarily... | Tell by... | Load |
-| :-- | :-- | :-- |
-| A **quality compounder** - high ROIC, long reinvestment runway | durable returns on capital well above cost, pricing power, low capital intensity | `references/archetypes/compounder.md` |
-| A **hypergrowth** name - fast top-line, profits immature | >25-30% growth, heavy S&M, GAAP losses or thin margins, large TAM claim | `references/archetypes/hypergrowth.md` |
-| A **cyclical** - earnings swing with a cycle | commodity/industrial/financial exposure, margins that breathe with demand | `references/archetypes/cyclical.md` |
-| A **turnaround / inflection** - economics bending on a catalyst | margin or demand inflecting on a regulatory, sectoral, or self-help change | `references/archetypes/turnaround.md` |
-| A **special situation** - a structural or legal fact drives it | spin-off, post-bankruptcy, merger/arb, seniority waterfall, squeeze-out | `references/archetypes/special_situation.md` |
-| A **deep-value / asset play** - price below tangible value | net cash, net-net, hidden assets, liquidation/sum-of-parts angle | `references/archetypes/deep_value.md` |
-| **None fits cleanly** ("anything") | - | Stay on the core spine above; reason from first principles. |
-
-## Driving the tools - the conductor's job
-
-You are the one deciding what the hands fetch. Be deliberate and frugal:
-
-- **Reuse the cache.** `sec-edgar-skill` writes filings to `./sec-cache/{TICKER}/` with
-  deterministic, accession-keyed names. `market-scout` caches transcripts to
-  `./transcript-cache/{TICKER}/transcripts/`. Before fetching, glob the cache; re-use
-  what's there rather than re-hitting the source.
-- **Pull by section, not whole filings.** Use item codes (10-K Item 1/1A/7/8) and
-  heading maps; grep the cached Markdown and read only the lines that matter. A 10-K can
-  exceed 100k words - loading one whole buries the signal.
-- **Transcripts are greppable too.** Once cached, grep a transcript for "guidance",
-  "margin", a competitor's name, or a specific metric - you don't need to read the whole
-  45-minute call to find the passage that matters.
-- **Ownership data is cached like everything else.** `sec-edgar-skill` writes 13F and
-  insider output to the same `sec-cache/{TICKER}/` tree under scope-keyed filenames. Glob
-  the cache before re-fetching — if the window you need is already on disk, grep and read
-  it rather than re-hitting the source.
-- **Spend tokens where the archetype says the value hides.** Don't fetch a proxy's
-  compensation tables for a hypergrowth TAM question, or a deferred-revenue footnote for a
-  liquidation. Let the playbook route you.
-- **For foreign private issuers** there is no 10-K/10-Q/DEF 14A - it's 20-F and 6-K, and the
-  financials are IFRS. `sec-edgar-skill`'s guides cover the mechanics.
-
-If a tool detail is unclear, defer to `sec-edgar-skill`'s and `market-scout`'s own guides
-and `--help`; do not re-document the hands here. Keep the tools unopinionated; keep the
-opinion in this skill.
-
-## Web research - grounding first, web for the gaps
-
-Filings are the spine of the memo because they are auditable and primary. Reach for the web
-only when no filing can answer the question - chiefly *relative* competitive advantage,
-real-time market share, pricing dynamics, and channel or customer checks. When you do:
-**attribute and date every web claim**, prefer primary sources (company IR, regulators,
-trade bodies) over aggregators, and never let a web assertion silently outrank a filing.
-Mark web-sourced claims distinctly in the memo so the reader can weight them.
-
-**Do not fire any web search until orient.py has returned and you have read at least one
-filing section.** This applies even for breaking news: orient.py will surface the 8-K
-filed today, and the 8-K's Exhibit 99.1 is the press release - the primary source that
-any web article is merely summarising. Fetch the exhibit; don't search for the summary.
-
-**When a tool errors, recover - don't escape to the web.** A failed `sec-edgar-skill` call
-is a fixable usage detail, not a signal to pivot to web search. Re-run `orient.py`, read the
-relevant guide, or query `.docs`, then retry. The web is a *supplement for what filings
-cannot cover* - never a fallback for filings you failed to fetch.
-
-## Valuation tooling
-
-Run the bundled scripts rather than hand-rolling a DCF per memo. `--help` is the
-authoritative flag reference; canonical invocations:
-
-```bash
-# Forward DCF (bear/base/bull sensitivity via comma-separated growth)
-python scripts/dcf.py --fcf0 1200 --growth 8,12,16 --years 10 --terminal-growth 3 \
-  --discount 10 --shares 500 --net-debt 200
-
-# Three-stage DCF (add --growth2/--years2 when the trajectory bends)
-python scripts/dcf.py --fcf0 5 --growth 25,35,50 --years 3 \
-  --growth2 5,8 --years2 7 --terminal-growth 2.5 --discount 12 \
-  --shares 30 --net-debt 66 --price 2.75
-
-# Reverse DCF (what growth does today's price imply?)
-python scripts/dcf.py --mode reverse --price 150 --fcf0 1200 --years 10 \
-  --terminal-growth 3 --discount 10 --shares 500 --net-debt 200
-
-# EPV (no-growth floor)
-python scripts/epv.py --ebit 600 --tax 21 --wacc 9 --shares 500 --net-debt 200
-```
-
-`references/guide_valuation.md` explains which lens to weight for which archetype, when to
-use three-stage vs two-stage, and how to set the discount rate and terminal value honestly.
-
-## Bundled resources
-
-| Resource | When to read / run |
-| :-- | :-- |
-| `references/memo_template.md` | The required output structure. Read before writing the memo. |
-| `references/guide_normalization.md` | Phase 3 - un-distorting the financials into owner earnings. |
-| `references/guide_competitive.md` | Phase 4 - SEC-first competitive work; when to go to the web. |
-| `references/guide_valuation.md` | Phase 5 - triangulation, reverse-DCF, discount/terminal discipline. |
-| `references/guide_ownership_signals.md` | Phase 6 - reading the 13F and insider ownership signal. |
-| `references/archetypes/*.md` | Phase 2 - load the one matching the company's shape. |
-| `scripts/dcf.py`, `scripts/epv.py` | Phase 5 - the valuation arithmetic. `--help` for flags. |
-
-## Definition of done: pitch-ready
-
-The memo ships when it passes **Lou's honesty gate** end to end - concretely:
-
-1. every claim is verified in a document or computed yourself, and everything unverified is
-   marked as such; and
-2. you have been as honest and specific about what is wrong with the thesis as about what
-   is right.
-
-Both true - the memo is pitch-ready.
+---
+name: bottom-up-analyst
+description: >-
+  Conduct substantive, long-only bottom-up research on one non-financial operating company.
+  Use for an investment thesis, buy/pass/watch decision, valuation, earnings-quality review,
+  bull/bear assessment, or full due-diligence memo when the user wants analysis rather than a
+  quote or filing lookup. The framework suits businesses whose operating, asset, or transaction
+  economics can be underwritten from public evidence, including cash-burning growth companies
+  with observable unit economics. Do not use it as the primary framework for banks, insurers,
+  REITs, funds, or clinical-stage and other predominantly binary-asset companies.
+---
+
+# Bottom-Up Analyst
+
+Turn evidence about one company into a long-only investment judgment. Scale the work to the
+question: answer a scoped valuation or earnings-quality request directly; produce the full memo
+only for a deep dive or when the user asks for one.
+
+This is the analysis layer of SecStack. Use `sec-edgar-skill` for filing evidence and
+`market-scout` for market data and transcripts. A finished memo may later feed
+`pitch-like-lou`, but this skill owns the research method and does not depend on that voice.
+
+## Evidence discipline
+
+Facts, estimates, assumptions, and external evidence must remain distinguishable. Use this
+markup on load-bearing claims and tables, not on headings or connective prose:
+
+- **[V] Verified:** checked against a cited filing, regulator, issuer document, or other
+  authoritative primary record. Identify the form/document, period, section or accession, and
+  date where available.
+- **[E] Estimate:** calculated or modeled. Show the formula, inputs, units, and source dates.
+- **[A] Assumption:** not established by available evidence. State what would validate it and
+  how the conclusion changes if it is wrong.
+- **[W] External evidence:** a web, trade, channel, expert, or secondary source. Name and date
+  it. `[W]` describes provenance, not truth; assess incentives and corroboration.
+
+Do not tag an inference `[V]` merely because its premises are verified. State the inference and
+cite its premises. An issuer filing verifies what the issuer disclosed, not that management's
+interpretation is neutral. Vendor-produced call transcripts are useful records of a call but
+can contain transcription errors; verify a load-bearing quotation against issuer materials or
+recording when practical.
+
+Prefer the source authoritative for the claim. SEC filings lead for filed financials, capital
+structure, contracts, ownership, and governance. Issuer IR may lead for a release not yet filed;
+a regulator or court may lead for a rule or case; industry data may lead for market structure.
+Report material conflicts instead of silently choosing one source.
+
+## Workflow
+
+### 1. Frame the decision
+
+Identify the security, listing, as-of date, investor question, and requested depth. Resolve
+ambiguous tickers or share classes before research. For a full deep dive, define the current
+market expectation you need to test. For a scoped request, investigate only the evidence needed
+to answer it and disclose what was not reviewed.
+
+### 2. Build the evidence set
+
+Use `sec-edgar-skill` orientation only when the relevant form or accession is unknown. Skip it
+when an accession, cached artifact, or non-SEC source is already the precise route. Read the
+latest annual filing and subsequent material updates for a full company review; choose narrower
+sources for a narrower question.
+
+Timestamp current market data. Check recent EDGAR and issuer IR for new disclosures, but do not
+assume a same-day event has already been filed. Use call transcripts for management statements
+and Q&A leads, with speaker attribution and the transcript caveat above.
+
+Keep large documents on disk and retrieve only relevant sections. Follow each data skill's own
+current guide and `--help`; do not guess flags, cache behavior, or field semantics here.
+
+### 3. Select the analytical lenses
+
+Choose an archetype only when it sharpens the work. Load the closest playbook from
+`references/archetypes/`; use a primary and secondary lens when the economics genuinely span
+both. Do not force a company into the taxonomy. If no playbook fits, reason from the business
+model and the decision at hand.
+
+| Lens | Use when the thesis turns on |
+| :-- | :-- |
+| `compounder.md` | returns on incremental capital and reinvestment runway |
+| `hypergrowth.md` | immature profits, unit economics, and a path to positive cash flow |
+| `cyclical.md` | normalized cycle earnings, cost position, and balance-sheet survival |
+| `turnaround.md` | a specific mechanism changing margins, demand, or capital structure |
+| `special_situation.md` | a transaction, legal document, security, or forced flow |
+| `deep_value.md` | conservatively realizable assets and a path to realization |
+
+### 4. Reconstruct the economics
+
+Reconcile reported earnings to the cash-flow measure appropriate to the valuation. Separate
+recurring operations from one-offs, acquisition effects, working-capital timing, stock
+compensation, leases, and maintenance versus growth investment without double-counting any
+adjustment. Use a multi-period view long enough for the business and cycle. Read
+`references/guide_normalization.md`.
+
+When a material part of value comes from a new stream or future margin structure, build a
+bottom-up bridge from operational drivers to revenue, margins, reinvestment, and cash flow.
+Treat an unsupported TAM share or margin target as `[A]`, not as a forecast.
+
+### 5. Underwrite the business and stewards
+
+Explain how the company makes money, why customers choose it, where industry profits accrue,
+and what could change. Select peers by business model and economics rather than accepting an
+automated industry list uncritically. Quantify material forces where reliable evidence permits;
+otherwise use a bounded range or identify the unresolved variable. Do not invent precision to
+fill a template. Read `references/guide_competitive.md`.
+
+Review management incentives, dilution, capital allocation, controlling holders, related-party
+transactions, and governance when they can affect value. Use 13F and Form 4 data as limited,
+lagged evidence rather than a verdict. Read `references/guide_ownership_signals.md`.
+
+### 6. Value the security
+
+Use the lenses that match the cash-flow and asset economics; triangulation does not mean running
+an inapplicable method. Reverse DCF is useful only when a positive base FCFF and the model shape
+make implied growth interpretable. EPV is a no-growth operating case, not a guaranteed floor.
+Special situations and asset plays usually need scenario payoffs or sum-of-parts work outside
+the bundled scripts.
+
+State the valuation date, cash-flow basis, enterprise-to-equity bridge, diluted share count,
+discount rate, terminal assumptions, and scenario logic. Vary the assumptions that actually
+drive value, not growth alone by habit. Read `references/guide_valuation.md` before running the
+scripts.
+
+### 7. Try to disprove the thesis
+
+Write the strongest contrary explanation, run the relevant playbook's disqualifiers, and test
+load-bearing assumptions. Distinguish permanent impairment from volatility. Describe what
+would falsify the thesis, the expected timing, financing or dilution risk, and any evidence gap
+that limits conviction. A pass or watch decision is a valid result.
+
+### 8. Deliver at the requested depth
+
+Use `references/memo_template.md` for a full deep dive. Adapt its sections and metrics to the
+company and thesis; it is a decision-oriented skeleton, not a form. For a scoped answer, give
+the conclusion, decisive evidence, calculations, countercase, missing work, and sources without
+padding it into a full memo.
+
+## Valuation scripts
+
+Resolve script paths relative to this `SKILL.md` and invoke them by absolute path while keeping
+the shell working directory at the user's research workspace. Every material assumption is
+explicit; `--help` is the flag reference.
+
+```bash
+# Positive-FCFF forward sensitivity
+python "<skill-dir>/scripts/dcf.py" forward --fcff0 1200 --growth 8,12,16 \
+  --years 10 --terminal-growth 3 --wacc 10 --shares 500 --net-claims 200 --price 75
+
+# Explicit annual FCFF, including an initial loss or inflection
+python "<skill-dir>/scripts/dcf.py" forecast --fcff=-20,10,45,80,110 \
+  --terminal-growth 2.5 --wacc 12 --shares 30 --net-claims 66 --price 8
+
+# Growth implied by price
+python "<skill-dir>/scripts/dcf.py" reverse --price 75 --fcff0 1200 --years 10 \
+  --terminal-growth 3 --wacc 10 --shares 500 --net-claims 200
+
+# No-growth operating earnings case
+python "<skill-dir>/scripts/epv.py" --ebit 600 --tax 21 --wacc 9 \
+  --shares 500 --net-claims 200 --price 10
+```
+
+The DCF is an enterprise model: pass normalized **FCFF**, discount at WACC, then subtract
+`--net-claims` (debt and other senior claims less non-operating assets). Do not pass
+after-interest owner earnings or FCFE and subtract debt again.
+
+## Resources
+
+| Resource | Read or run when |
+| :-- | :-- |
+| `references/memo_template.md` | writing a full due-diligence memo |
+| `references/guide_normalization.md` | reconstructing normalized cash economics |
+| `references/guide_competitive.md` | underwriting industry and competitive position |
+| `references/guide_valuation.md` | choosing and implementing valuation lenses |
+| `references/guide_ownership_signals.md` | assessing ownership, insiders, incentives, and governance |
+| `references/archetypes/*.md` | one or two lenses materially sharpen the case |
+| `scripts/dcf.py`, `scripts/epv.py` | reproducible enterprise-valuation arithmetic |
+
+## Completion check
+
+Before answering, ensure the work supports its own confidence: current security and source
+periods are clear; material facts are cited; calculations reconcile; assumptions and inferences
+are visible; the strongest countercase is addressed; valuation uses a consistent cash-flow
+basis; and omitted work is disclosed. Do not manufacture a verdict stronger than the evidence.
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/compounder.md b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/compounder.md
index d6e0c07..462a7f5 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/compounder.md
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/compounder.md
@@ -1,66 +1,57 @@
-# Archetype: Quality Compounder
-
-A business that earns **high returns on capital** and can **reinvest** a large share of its
-earnings at similar returns for years. The thesis is rarely "it's cheap" — it's "the market
-under-appreciates the *duration* and *reinvestment runway* of the compounding." Time is the
-ally; you are underwriting a machine, then trying to buy it at a fair price. (One of Lou's
-three value-investing shapes — see NVR, Sportsman's Guide in the `pitch-like-lou` corpus.)
-
-## Tell it by
-
-Durable ROIC/ROE well above the cost of capital (sustained, not a single year), pricing
-power, low incremental capital intensity, expanding or stable margins, and a reinvestment
-runway (new units, geographies, share gains) that isn't nearly exhausted.
-
-## Where the value hides
-
-- **Duration the market won't extrapolate.** Screens see a high multiple and stop; the edge
-  is judging that the high return *persists* far longer than consensus assumes.
-- **Reinvestment math.** Value = return on incremental capital × the fraction reinvested. A
-  35% ROIC business reinvesting 70% of earnings compounds intrinsic value ~24%/yr before any
-  multiple change — that engine, not the entry multiple, is the thesis.
-- **Under-distorted economics** — GAAP often *understates* a compounder (expensed growth
-  investment, deferred revenue, conservative depreciation).
-
-## Pull these (drive sec-edgar)
-
-- 10-K Item 7 (MD&A) and Item 1 (Business) — the unit economics and the runway in management's
-  words.
-- The cash-flow statement and the revenue / deferred-revenue / lease footnotes — for the
-  normalization that reveals true returns.
-- A multi-year financial history (`sec-edgar-skill`'s `parse_financials.py` across years) — to prove ROIC is
-  *durable*, not a one-year flatter.
-- The proxy (DEF 14A) — capital-allocation incentives; is management paid to compound or to
-  empire-build?
-
-## Key metrics
-
-ROIC and **return on incremental invested capital** (the forward-looking one), reinvestment
-rate, organic revenue growth, gross-margin stability, FCF conversion, same-store / cohort /
-unit economics where disclosed.
-
-## Normalize / adjust
-
-- Split maintenance vs. growth capex carefully — a compounder's value is highly sensitive to
-  it (see `guide_normalization.md`).
-- Pull deferred revenue back into earning power; undo conservative-accounting drag.
-- Expense stock comp and bake dilution into the share count.
-
-## Valuation lens
-
-Lead with a **forward two-stage DCF** that gives the long reinvestment runway room, then
-**reality-check with a reverse-DCF** (is the priced-in growth sane?) and floor it with EPV.
-The key question isn't today's multiple — it's whether the runway justifies it.
-
-## Disqualifiers — kill it (or mark it down) if…
-
-- High ROIC is an **accounting mirage** — goodwill-light denominators, off-balance-sheet
-  leverage, or returns that evaporate once you capitalize the real investment.
-- **Growth needs ever more capital at falling returns** — incremental ROIC is decaying toward
-  the cost of capital; the compounding is already ending.
-- The **reinvestment runway is nearly full** — you're paying a compounder multiple for what's
-  about to become a no-growth cash cow.
-- **Buybacks only when the stock is dear**, or capital allocation that destroys the very
-  compounding you're paying for.
-- Margins propped by a **temporary** advantage (a subsidy, a fad, one big customer) rather
-  than a structural moat.
+# Archetype: quality compounder
+
+Use this lens when value depends on a business reinvesting substantial cash at attractive
+incremental returns for a long time. The analytical edge is usually duration and reinvestment,
+not merely calling the company “high quality.”
+
+## Establish the shape
+
+Look for persistent economic returns above the opportunity cost of capital, a demonstrated
+ability to reinvest, durable customer value, and room to deploy more capital. Do not use a fixed
+ROIC or growth threshold. Adjust accounting and compare through a cycle where relevant.
+
+Distinguish:
+
+- average ROIC from return on **incremental** invested capital;
+- organic reinvestment from acquisitions and financial leverage;
+- pricing power from temporary price/cost timing;
+- a long runway from a large but inaccessible TAM; and
+- per-share compounding from enterprise growth offset by dilution.
+
+A useful approximation is sustainable operating growth = reinvestment rate × return on new
+capital. It is not an identity for shareholder return or intrinsic-value growth; taxes,
+distributions, financing, fade, and valuation still matter.
+
+## Evidence to pull
+
+- segment economics, unit growth, pricing, retention, and customer concentration;
+- capex, working capital, acquisitions, and other reinvestment by period;
+- gross margin, incremental margin, ROIC, and FCFF across enough years to test durability;
+- diluted share count, repurchases, stock compensation, and acquisition consideration;
+- incentives and capital-allocation record from proxies and filings; and
+- peers with similar customers and business models, not merely the same sector label.
+
+## Valuation
+
+Connect the explicit forecast to reinvestment capacity and incremental returns. Test what growth
+duration and fade the current price implies. A forward enterprise DCF may be useful when FCFF is
+positive and predictable; an explicit forecast is better when margins or reinvestment change.
+EPV can show how much value comes from future reinvestment but is not a hard downside floor.
+
+Do not justify a terminal premium by repeating the word “quality.” Normalize returns and
+reinvestment in the terminal state.
+
+## Disqualifiers and counterevidence
+
+Mark down or reject the case when:
+
+- reported ROIC is an accounting artifact or omits required assets and obligations;
+- incremental returns are falling toward or below the cost of capital;
+- growth requires acquisitions or spending that the model excludes;
+- the reachable runway is nearly exhausted or competitors can copy the expansion;
+- customer concentration, regulation, or a temporary shortage explains the apparent moat;
+- buybacks occur above defensible value or only offset dilution; or
+- enterprise growth fails to produce per-share value.
+
+The memo should state the operating measure that will reveal runway or return decay before the
+headline growth rate does.
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/cyclical.md b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/cyclical.md
index 5fb5b63..59c3bec 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/cyclical.md
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/cyclical.md
@@ -1,66 +1,49 @@
-# Archetype: Cyclical
-
-A business whose earnings swing with a **cycle** — commodity prices, the industrial economy,
-housing, credit, shipping rates. The cardinal sin is valuing it on its current earnings:
-peak earnings on a low multiple is the classic value trap, and trough losses on a "no
-multiple" basis is where the bargains hide. The whole game is **normalizing to mid-cycle**
-and knowing *where in the cycle you are*.
-
-## Tell it by
-
-Revenue and margins that breathe with an external driver, history of boom/bust EPS, exposure
-to a commodity or a capital-spending cycle, operating leverage that amplifies both
-directions, and a balance sheet that matters more than usual (leverage kills cyclicals at the
-trough).
-
-## Where the value hides
-
-- **Mid-cycle earning power**, not the printed number — what the business makes *on average*
-  across a full cycle.
-- **Cycle position.** Buying near the trough (ugly trailing numbers, washed-out sentiment) and
-  selling near the peak (record earnings, optimistic multiples) is most of the return. The
-  tape and the headlines will tell you the opposite of what to do.
-- **The low-cost producer** survives the trough and takes share; cost-curve position is the
-  durable edge in a commodity business.
-
-## Pull these (drive sec-edgar)
-
-- 10-K Item 7 (MD&A) across **multiple years spanning a full cycle** — pull a long history so
-  you can see peak-to-trough, not one phase.
-- The balance sheet and debt maturities — can it survive the next trough without a dilutive
-  raise? Leverage is the cyclical killer.
-- Segment data and the cost structure — fixed vs. variable, the operating leverage, the
-  position on the industry cost curve.
-- Industry data (often web/trade sources [W]) — capacity utilization, inventory, the
-  supply/demand balance that sets where the cycle goes next.
-
-## Key metrics
-
-Mid-cycle revenue and EBIT margin, peak-to-trough earnings range, capacity utilization,
-incremental/decremental margins (operating leverage), net debt / mid-cycle EBITDA, cost-curve
-position, returns on capital *averaged across the cycle*.
-
-## Normalize / adjust
-
-- **Mid-cycle earnings:** average margins (or volumes × normalized price) across a full cycle,
-  then apply to current capacity — don't anchor on the latest year either way.
-- Adjust for capacity added/retired since the last comparable cycle phase.
-- Stress the balance sheet at trough cash flows; a covenant breach changes everything.
-
-## Valuation lens
-
-**EPV on mid-cycle EBIT** is the natural anchor (no growth credit on top of an already-rich
-mid-cycle number), cross-checked with a **normalized P/E** and the multiple the stock has
-historically commanded at this cycle phase. Beware: a *low* trailing P/E on peak earnings is a
-sell signal, not a buy.
-
-## Disqualifiers — kill it (or mark it down) if…
-
-- **It's a peak, not a trough** — current earnings are cycle-high and you'd be paying a
-  "cheap" multiple on a number about to fall.
-- **The balance sheet won't survive the trough** — too much debt, near-term maturities, or
-  covenant risk; cyclicality + leverage is how permanent losses happen.
-- **It's a high-cost producer** — first to bleed in the downturn, no share gains in recovery.
-- **The cycle is structurally impaired** — secular demand decline (not just cyclical), so
-  "mid-cycle" never returns.
-- You can't actually tell where in the cycle you are — then you're guessing, not investing.
+# Archetype: cyclical
+
+Use this lens when an external cycle drives material variation in price, volume, credit,
+utilization, or margins. The central tasks are estimating normalized economics, locating the
+current cycle with humility, and testing whether the balance sheet survives a worse path.
+
+## Establish the shape
+
+Identify the actual cycle driver and transmission mechanism. Separate cyclical variation from a
+secular change in demand, technology, regulation, or cost position. The latest earnings and
+trailing multiple are often poor anchors at both peaks and troughs.
+
+Study more than one comparable cycle where the history exists. Adjust for changes in capacity,
+product mix, geography, accounting, acquisitions, and capital structure before averaging old
+results.
+
+## Evidence to pull
+
+- price, volume, mix, utilization, backlog, inventory, and capacity across a full cycle;
+- fixed and variable costs, incremental and decremental margins, and cash conversion;
+- sustaining capex, working-capital swings, and closure or restart costs;
+- debt maturities, covenants, liquidity, collateral, and refinancing requirements;
+- cost-curve or asset-quality evidence relative to competitors; and
+- authoritative industry supply, demand, inventory, and capacity data.
+
+## Normalization and valuation
+
+Estimate mid-cycle earnings from operating drivers, not a blind arithmetic average. Show a
+trough, normalized, and strong environment with the associated FCFF, liquidity, and share count.
+Include any dilution or asset sale needed to survive the trough.
+
+EPV on defensible mid-cycle operating earnings can be useful, alongside asset or unit values and
+historical transaction evidence. A spot P/E or EV/EBITDA on peak results is not evidence of
+cheapness. An explicit DCF should model the transition to normalized conditions rather than
+assuming a peak or trough persists.
+
+## Disqualifiers and counterevidence
+
+Mark down or reject the case when:
+
+- normalized earnings are anchored to an unusually favorable period;
+- the balance sheet, covenants, or liquidity cannot withstand the downside path;
+- the company sits high on the cost curve or owns impaired assets;
+- new capacity, substitution, or secular decline prevents the prior cycle from returning;
+- management adds capacity or leverage near peaks and issues equity near troughs; or
+- the thesis requires precise cycle timing unsupported by observable supply and demand.
+
+The memo should state the cycle indicators, what phase they suggest, alternative explanations,
+and what evidence would prove the “mid-cycle” estimate too high.
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/deep_value.md b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/deep_value.md
index a846a6c..da6ef10 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/deep_value.md
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/deep_value.md
@@ -1,69 +1,60 @@
-# Archetype: Deep Value / Asset Play
-
-The price is below a conservative reckoning of **what the company owns** — net cash, net-net
-working capital, hidden or understated assets, or a sum-of-the-parts/liquidation value well
-above the market cap. The thesis is *margin of safety in the assets*, not earnings growth.
-The two things that kill it are a **catch** (debt or cash burn eating the assets) and the
-**absence of a catalyst** (cheap forever isn't a return). (Lou's cigar-butt shape — see Winmill
-in the `pitch-like-lou` corpus.)
-
-## Tell it by
-
-Market cap near or below net cash / net current assets / tangible book; assets carried below
-market value (real estate at historical cost, a stake marked conservatively, a hidden
-subsidiary); a discount to a credible liquidation or break-up value.
-
-## Where the value hides
-
-- **On the balance sheet, not the income statement.** Net cash minus *all* liabilities;
-  current assets minus *all* liabilities (net-net); assets carried below fair value.
-- **In what's hidden or mismarked** — land at 1950s cost, an equity stake at the lower of
-  cost, an over-funded pension, a non-consolidated JV.
-- **Behind a catalyst.** The discount only becomes a return when something closes it — a
-  buyback, a sale, a liquidation, an activist, a return of capital. Asset value *plus* a
-  realization path is the complete thesis.
-
-## Pull these (drive sec-edgar)
-
-- The **balance sheet and every liability footnote** — including off-balance-sheet and
-  contingent claims (the hidden liabilities that turn a "net cash" story into a trap).
-- The cash-flow statement — is operating burn *depleting* the asset pile? A melting ice cube
-  isn't a bargain.
-- Recent 8-Ks — asset sales, buybacks, special dividends, activist involvement (the catalyst).
-- The proxy (DEF 14A) — controlling holder, founder age/estate, insider ownership and pay; who
-  decides whether value gets realized, and are they aligned or extracting?
-
-## Key metrics
-
-Net cash per share, net-net working capital per share, tangible book, discount to liquidation /
-sum-of-the-parts, cash burn rate and **months of runway**, insider ownership %, the size of
-the discount vs. the annual governance "leakage."
-
-## Normalize / adjust
-
-- Subtract **all** liabilities, not just debt — pensions, leases, contingencies, preferred.
-- **Haircut** assets to realizable value (receivables, inventory, "investments"); mark hidden
-  assets *up* to fair value with evidence.
-- Back non-recurring items out of operating cash flow to see the true burn (or generation).
-- Price the cost of value-destructive governance (option grants, related-party deals) and
-  subtract it — the discount has to survive that.
-
-## Valuation lens
-
-**Asset value / liquidation value** is the anchor (conservative, haircut), with an **EPV floor**
-on any ongoing operations and a **reverse-DCF or scenario on the catalyst** to gauge the return
-*if and when* the gap closes. The return is (asset value − price) × probability-of-realization
-÷ time — so the catalyst's likelihood and timing are part of the valuation, not an afterthought.
-
-## Disqualifiers — kill it (or mark it down) if…
-
-- **There's a catch** — funded debt senior to you, or operating cash burn that eats the asset
-  pile faster than you can realize it.
-- **No catalyst and no path to one** — a controller content to sit on the discount forever; a
-  perpetual value trap.
-- **The discount is smaller than the governance theft** — insiders extract more per year than
-  the gap you'd capture.
-- **The assets aren't what they're carried at** — receivables uncollectable, inventory stale,
-  "investments" impaired, real estate encumbered.
-- **Hidden liabilities** — pension shortfalls, litigation, guarantees that erase the net-asset
-  cushion.
+# Archetype: deep value or asset play
+
+Use this lens when the case depends on conservatively realizable assets or a sum of parts rather
+than forecast growth. A balance-sheet discount is only the start; liabilities, cash burn,
+control, tax, timing, and a credible realization path determine whether it becomes a return.
+
+## Establish the shape
+
+Identify the exact asset claim per diluted share and why carrying value differs from realizable
+value. Distinguish cash available to common shareholders from restricted, regulated, pledged,
+subsidiary, or operating cash. Determine who can authorize realization and whether incentives
+support it.
+
+## Evidence to pull
+
+- balance sheet and footnotes for debt, leases, pensions, guarantees, contingencies, preferred
+  claims, minority interests, and restrictions;
+- asset-level detail for receivables, inventory, property, investments, tax basis, liens, and
+  disposal costs;
+- operating cash flow and commitments to estimate how quickly the asset cushion changes;
+- buybacks, tenders, sales, liquidation plans, spin-offs, or other realization actions;
+- proxy, 13D/13G, voting rights, related parties, compensation, and insider ownership; and
+- market or transaction evidence for asset haircuts and sale timelines.
+
+## Valuation
+
+Build a transparent realizable-value bridge:
+
+```text
+cash and investments, adjusted for restrictions
++ recoverable receivables and inventory
++ appraised or transaction-supported asset values
+− all debt and senior claims
+− operating losses through realization
+− tax, transaction, closure, and corporate costs
+= value available to common equity
+```
+
+Use ranges for recovery rates and timing. Value ongoing operations separately with EPV only when
+earnings are durable and required maintenance is included. Do not call book value or EPV a hard
+floor.
+
+Model realization outcomes and annualized returns rather than multiplying the headline discount
+by probability and dividing by time. Expected value must include the downside payoff, interim
+burn or distributions, taxes, and time value.
+
+## Disqualifiers and counterevidence
+
+Mark down or reject the case when:
+
+- restricted cash, senior claims, liens, or contingencies consume the apparent cushion;
+- operating losses or required investment erode value before realization;
+- receivables, inventory, property, or investments cannot realize the assumed amount;
+- a controller can delay or divert value and minority protections are weak;
+- annual compensation, related-party leakage, or dilution overwhelms expected convergence;
+- tax and transaction costs eliminate the headline discount; or
+- no observable path or decision-maker can close the gap within an underwritable period.
+
+The memo should state who controls realization, what action is required, the expected value under
+non-realization, and the monitorable that shows the asset cushion is melting.
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/hypergrowth.md b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/hypergrowth.md
index 1878dbc..5c3e30a 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/hypergrowth.md
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/hypergrowth.md
@@ -1,68 +1,59 @@
-# Archetype: Hypergrowth
-
-A company growing the top line fast (often >25–30%/yr) where **profits are immature or
-absent** — earnings are being deliberately deferred into customer acquisition, R&D, or land
-grab. This is the shape Lou never invested in, and it needs analysis his playbook doesn't
-contain: the question isn't "what does it earn today" but "**what will the unit economics
-look like at scale, how durable is the growth, and is that future already in the price?**"
-
-## Tell it by
-
-Rapid revenue growth with GAAP losses or thin margins, heavy S&M and/or R&D as a % of
-revenue, a large TAM claim, negative or marginal FCF reinvested into growth, frequent equity
-issuance, and metrics management steers you to (ARR, net revenue retention, GMV, MAUs).
-
-## Where the value (and the trap) hides
-
-- **Unit economics at maturity.** Strip the growth spend and look at a *cohort* or a mature
-  segment: are the underlying customers profitable once you stop acquiring more? A business
-  that's "unprofitable because it's investing" is wonderful; one that's unprofitable because
-  the unit economics don't work is a value trap with a story.
-- **Durability of growth.** TAM size, share gains vs. market growth, competitive intensity,
-  and whether growth is *organic* or bought with discounts and incentives.
-- **The dilution tax.** Stock comp and secondary raises can quietly transfer most of the
-  upside to employees and new shareholders — per-*share* value is what matters.
-
-## Pull these (drive sec-edgar)
-
-- 10-K/10-Q MD&A and the latest earnings 8-K (Exhibit 99.1) — growth drivers, cohort/retention
-  disclosure, the metrics management reports and how their definitions change.
-- The cash-flow statement and stock-comp footnote — real cash burn and the dilution rate.
-- The S-1 / early 10-Ks if recently public — original unit-economics and TAM framing to test
-  against what actually happened.
-- Peers' filings — to separate company-specific share gains from a rising-tide market.
-
-## Key metrics
-
-Revenue growth (organic), gross margin and its *trajectory*, net revenue retention / cohort
-retention, CAC payback and LTV/CAC, contribution margin, **Rule of 40** (and its trend),
-FCF burn and **runway**, fully-diluted share-count growth.
-
-## Normalize / adjust
-
-- Treat stock-based comp as the real expense it is and fold dilution into shares — *the* swing
-  factor between "profitable at scale" and not.
-- Distinguish **growth** opex/capex from **maintenance**: model the steady-state margin by
-  scaling S&M down to a renewal level, not zero.
-- Watch metric definitions — "adjusted EBITDA" that addbacks stock comp and "non-recurring"
-  growth costs can manufacture profitability that doesn't exist.
-
-## Valuation lens
-
-**Reverse-DCF is the lead lens** — solve for the growth/margin the price implies and judge
-whether it's achievable, because forecasting a hyper-growth decade forward is mostly
-self-deception. Cross-check with a scenario forward DCF on *mature-state* margins (bear/base/
-bull) and with forward multiples. Anchor on per-share, post-dilution.
-
-## Disqualifiers — kill it (or mark it down) if…
-
-- **Unit economics don't work at scale** — mature cohorts/segments still don't generate cash;
-  growth is buying revenue at a structural loss.
-- **The priced-in growth is fantasy** — reverse-DCF requires a decade above what the company
-  (or anyone in the category) has ever sustained.
-- **Growth is decelerating** while the valuation still assumes acceleration.
-- **Dilution eats the upside** — share count compounds so fast that per-share value barely
-  moves even if the business wins.
-- **The TAM is a mirage** — top-down "1% of a huge market" with no bottom-up path, or a market
-  that shrinks as the product commoditizes.
-- **Runway is short** and the next raise will be dilutive or unavailable.
+# Archetype: cash-burning or high-growth operating company
+
+Use this lens when current profit understates or fails to show the economics management expects
+at scale, but the company has observable customers, revenue, and operating drivers. Do not use it
+for a predominantly binary clinical, exploration, or legal asset.
+
+## Establish the shape
+
+Growth rates alone do not define the archetype. Look for deliberate investment ahead of revenue,
+immature margins, evolving product-market fit, meaningful stock compensation or external
+financing, and operating metrics that can connect customers or units to cash flow.
+
+Separate:
+
+- growth caused by customer value from growth purchased with discounts or uneconomic spend;
+- mature-cohort economics from blended company economics;
+- organic growth from acquisitions;
+- gross retention from expansion revenue;
+- addressable demand from management's TAM; and
+- company growth from per-share value after dilution.
+
+Metrics such as retention, CAC payback, LTV/CAC, active users, GMV, ARR, or Rule of 40 apply only
+when they match the business model and are defined consistently. Reconcile non-GAAP measures to
+reported results and track definition changes.
+
+## Evidence to pull
+
+- cohort, retention, pricing, usage, backlog, and contribution-margin disclosures;
+- gross margin and sales, marketing, R&D, support, capex, and working capital by period;
+- cash, burn, debt, covenants, funding needs, and runway under a downside case;
+- stock compensation, grants, issuance, repurchases, and diluted share history;
+- early public filings and prior targets, to compare the original model with outcomes; and
+- peers or substitutes that reveal acquisition cost, churn, price, and mature margins.
+
+## Valuation
+
+Do not grow a negative FCFF base with the constant-growth DCF route. Build explicit annual
+revenue, margin, tax, reinvestment, and FCFF scenarios, then use `dcf.py forecast` once the annual
+FCFF sequence is defensible. Reconcile the current price to combinations of scale, mature margin,
+capital intensity, and dilution rather than presenting one implied growth rate as unique.
+
+Forward revenue multiples are shorthand for future margin, growth, and reinvestment assumptions;
+make that bridge explicit. Include financing and dilution before the company reaches positive
+cash flow.
+
+## Disqualifiers and counterevidence
+
+Mark down or reject the case when:
+
+- mature cohorts or units remain uneconomic;
+- growth depends on rising incentives, falling price, or worsening acquisition efficiency;
+- retention, backlog quality, or metric definitions deteriorate;
+- a plausible scale and margin path still cannot reconcile to the price;
+- the reachable market is not supported by bottom-up customers or units;
+- funding runs out before operating break-even or creates unacceptable dilution; or
+- the model assumes costs disappear rather than scale with service obligations.
+
+The memo should identify the metric that distinguishes temporary investment from structurally
+poor unit economics and the date by which evidence should emerge.
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/special_situation.md b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/special_situation.md
index d93318b..feec365 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/special_situation.md
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/special_situation.md
@@ -1,72 +1,54 @@
-# Archetype: Special Situation
-
-A situation where a **structural, legal, or transactional fact** — not the ongoing business —
-drives the outcome: a spin-off, post-bankruptcy equity, a merger/arb spread, a seniority
-waterfall, a put/call formula, a squeeze-out or minority-protection statute, a recapitalization.
-The edge is *forensic*: you read the actual document, compute the formula yourself, and rebuild
-the capital structure — and you reach a conclusion that nearly *has* to resolve a certain way.
-(Lou's richest value-investing shape — see Quilmes, MCI, NII Holdings, Telemig in the
-`pitch-like-lou` corpus.)
-
-## Tell it by
-
-The thesis hinges on an event or a legal/structural mechanism rather than earnings growth:
-corporate actions (spin, merger, tender, reorg), unusual securities (pink-sheet preferreds,
-stubs, post-reorg equity), or a binding formula/statute that forces value to a class of
-holders.
-
-## Where the value hides
-
-- **In the document itself.** The put/call formula in an exhibit, the seniority of a security
-  in the waterfall, the squeeze-out price mechanism in foreign company law. The market prices
-  the *headline*; the edge is reading the *fine print* and computing the consequence.
-- **In forced/neglected selling.** Spin-offs dumped by index funds, post-bankruptcy equity
-  held by creditors who want out, complex securities no analyst covers — structural sellers
-  create mispricing unrelated to value.
-- **In the binding-ness.** The whole thesis rests on whether the legal fact *actually binds*.
-  That is the one thing you must verify yourself, not relay second-hand.
-
-## Pull these (drive sec-edgar)
-
-- **The primary document** — the merger agreement, indenture, plan of reorganization, 13D
-  exhibit, Form 10 spin filing, or the foreign-law statute. Read the *exhibit*, not the
-  summary. `sec-edgar-skill` can pull attachments/exhibits directly.
-- 8-Ks for the triggering event (Item 1.01, 1.03, 2.01, 5.01) and the timeline.
-- 13D/G for the activist or controlling holder and — critically —
-  `item4_purpose_of_transaction` (the *why*).
-- For foreign private issuers: 20-F and 6-K, and the local regulator's filings; reconcile to a
-  comparable basis.
-- Capital-structure detail to rebuild the **post-event** balance sheet and the waterfall.
-
-## Key metrics / objects
-
-The payoff under each outcome (deal closes / breaks; put exercised / not), the **probability
-and timing** of each, the position in the capital structure, the spread vs. downside, the
-sum-of-the-parts value, the formula output you computed yourself.
-
-## Normalize / adjust
-
-- **Compute the formula yourself** from the document — do not trust a summary or a third-hand
-  characterization (`pitch-like-lou`'s inviolable rule, the MCI lesson).
-- Rebuild the **pro-forma** capital structure as it exists *after* the event.
-- For foreign issuers, reconcile foreign-GAAP/IFRS to a comparable basis before valuing.
-
-## Valuation lens
-
-**Event payoff / sum-of-the-parts**, probability-weighted across outcomes, with the spread
-measured against a hard downside. For spins, value the pieces separately on **multiples**; for
-arb, it's payoff × probability vs. break risk; for structural/legal, it's the formula output
-discounted for time and the (small) chance the fact doesn't bind.
-
-## Disqualifiers — kill it (or mark it down) if…
-
-- **The legal/structural fact doesn't actually bind** — the formula has an out, the statute
-  doesn't apply, the seniority is subordinated by a clause you missed.
-- **Minorities have no protection** — a controller can take the value without sharing it
-  (no fair-price statute, no independent committee, coercive terms).
-- **The timeline is open-ended** — no forcing event or date; "eventually" is not a catalyst and
-  time decay eats arb returns.
-- **You're relying on something you didn't verify** — any load-bearing claim taken second-hand
-  is an unpriced risk; check it or mark the conviction down hard.
-- **The downside isn't bounded** — if the deal breaks or the put isn't exercised, the residual
-  business is worth far less than the spread implies.
+# Archetype: special situation
+
+Use this lens when a transaction, security term, legal document, reorganization, spin-off,
+tender, recapitalization, or forced flow drives value more than ordinary operating growth. The
+edge is accurate document reading, a complete capital structure, and scenario arithmetic.
+
+## Establish the shape
+
+Identify the binding event or term, the security being valued, conditions and consents, seniority,
+timeline, and who controls each decision. Read the operative agreement, plan, indenture, exhibit,
+court order, or statute rather than relying on a summary.
+
+A primary document verifies its text, not the analyst's legal interpretation. Mark uncertain
+interpretation as `[A]`, use qualified legal analysis where material, and do not describe an
+outcome as inevitable merely because the language appears favorable.
+
+## Evidence to pull
+
+- operative transaction and security documents, including definitions, schedules, and exhibits;
+- SEC current reports, registration or information statements, tender materials, and amendments;
+- court, regulator, exchange, and home-jurisdiction records where applicable;
+- voting agreements, financing commitments, termination rights, fees, and outside dates;
+- 13D/13G purpose, control relationships, and minority protections;
+- the fully diluted pre- and post-event capital structure and claim waterfall; and
+- operating information needed to value each residual outcome.
+
+## Scenario arithmetic
+
+For each material outcome, show:
+
+- payoff to the exact security and share class;
+- interim distributions, financing, taxes, fees, and dilution;
+- probability basis and dependencies;
+- expected timing and annualized return; and
+- break, delay, or residual value supported independently of the deal price.
+
+Use sum-of-parts for separable businesses and a waterfall for layered claims. Rebuild the
+post-event balance sheet rather than subtracting today's net debt mechanically. Preserve
+currency, exchange-ratio, proration, and conversion assumptions.
+
+## Disqualifiers and counterevidence
+
+Mark down or reject the case when:
+
+- a condition, definition, consent, financing out, or senior claim defeats the apparent term;
+- minority protections or enforcement are weaker than assumed;
+- the timeline is open-ended and carrying costs erase the expected return;
+- break value depends on the unaffected price without re-underwriting the business;
+- probability is asserted without a base rate or case-specific evidence;
+- taxes, fees, proration, dilution, tradability, or liquidity materially change the security payoff; or
+- a load-bearing legal interpretation has not been independently checked.
+
+The memo should separate document facts, legal interpretation, probability judgment, and payoff
+calculation so a reader can disagree with one without losing the entire audit trail.
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/turnaround.md b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/turnaround.md
index 7dc4e66..91ce218 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/turnaround.md
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/archetypes/turnaround.md
@@ -1,74 +1,57 @@
-# Archetype: Turnaround / Inflection
-
-A business whose **economics are bending** — a money-loser or no-grower whose unit economics,
-margins, or growth are inflecting because of a *specific, identifiable* change: a regulatory
-or sectoral tailwind, a new management team, a divested loss-maker, a pricing reset, a
-product cycle, a cost-structure overhaul. This is the "shitco with inflecting economics"
-case. The thesis is **discontinuity** — the future will not look like the trailing financials,
-and you must prove *why* with a mechanism, not a hope.
-
-## Tell it by
-
-Poor or deteriorating trailing numbers but an identifiable catalyst for change; a new CEO
-with a credible plan; a regulatory/sectoral shift that alters the company's economics; early
-evidence of margin or demand inflection in the most recent quarters; a market still pricing
-the *old* trajectory.
-
-## Where the value hides
-
-- **The gap between trailing and forward.** The market extrapolates the recent past; the edge
-  is identifying a *real* break in trend before the financials confirm it.
-- **The mechanism.** A turnaround thesis lives or dies on a concrete cause — "new management
-  cut 300bps of structural cost," "regulation X forces a price the company couldn't charge
-  before," "the loss-making segment was sold." Vague "things will get better" is not a thesis.
-- **Asymmetry.** Done right, the downside is anchored by current/asset value while the upside
-  is the inflected earning power — but only if the balance sheet buys enough time.
-
-## Pull these (drive sec-edgar)
-
-- The **most recent** 8-Ks, 10-Qs, and earnings call/exhibit — this is where early inflection
-  evidence shows up first; weight recency heavily.
-- 10-K MD&A and segment data — to locate exactly *where* the losses/drag sit and whether the
-  fix targets it.
-- 8-Ks for the catalyst itself — management change (Item 5.02), divestiture/restructuring,
-  strategic shift; read the actual filing, not the press summary.
-- Balance sheet and liquidity — does it have the runway to reach the inflection? A right thesis
-  with a wrong balance sheet still goes to zero.
-- For regulatory/sectoral tailwinds: the rule/regulator filings and peers' filings, plus web
-  [W] for the policy context filings won't carry.
-
-## Key metrics
-
-Sequential (QoQ) margin and revenue trend (not just YoY), the specific cost/revenue line that's
-inflecting, incremental margins on the recovery, cash runway and burn, leverage and maturities,
-the size of the addressable improvement vs. the current loss.
-
-## Normalize / adjust
-
-- Model **post-inflection** steady-state economics explicitly — and separately keep a
-  **downside case where the inflection fails**.
-- Strip the segment/cost being fixed to see the "good company" underneath.
-- Be conservative on timing; inflections usually take longer than the bull case assumes.
-
-## Valuation lens
-
-**Scenario DCF** on post-inflection margins (bear = inflection stalls; base = partial; bull =
-full), with **EPV/asset value today as the downside floor**. A turnaround’s FCF trajectory
-almost always has a structural bend — near-term acceleration from cost-outs, margin
-expansion, or debt paydown, followed by a different normalized growth rate. The **three-stage
-DCF** (`--growth2`, `--years2`) exists for exactly this shape; prefer it over forcing a
-single stage-1 rate to average across two distinct phases. The thesis is attractive only if
-the EPV floor limits the loss while the inflection delivers the upside — quantify both ends.
-
-## Disqualifiers — kill it (or mark it down) if…
-
-- **No concrete mechanism** — the case rests on hope, sentiment, or "it's too cheap to go
-  lower" rather than a specific, traceable cause of change.
-- **The balance sheet runs out before the inflection lands** — insufficient runway; the next
-  raise is dilutive or unavailable.
-- **The inflection is already in the price** — the market has re-rated ahead of proof and the
-  asymmetry is gone.
-- **It's a value trap** — the "temporary" problems are structural/secular (dying end-market,
-  broken model), so the inflection never comes.
-- **No evidence yet** *and* no near-dated way to get it — an untestable turnaround is a bet,
-  not a thesis.
+# Archetype: turnaround or inflection
+
+Use this lens when a specific change may make future economics differ materially from trailing
+results: restructuring, new management, pricing, divestiture, product transition, regulation,
+demand recovery, or capital-structure repair. Cheapness and management targets are not mechanisms.
+
+## Establish the shape
+
+Write the causal bridge:
+
+```text
+identified change
+→ operating line affected
+→ magnitude and timing
+→ cash cost and funding
+→ observable evidence so far
+→ normalized FCFF if it works
+```
+
+Separate self-help the company controls from external recovery it does not. Distinguish early
+evidence from a target, and identify the old problem that could persist.
+
+## Evidence to pull
+
+- recent quarterly and current reports, exhibits, and calls for sequential evidence;
+- segment results and cost lines that locate the drag and proposed improvement;
+- restructuring charges, cash payments, stranded costs, dis-synergies, and transition capex;
+- pricing, volume, backlog, churn, or utilization measures tied to the mechanism;
+- management's prior targets and delivery record;
+- liquidity, covenants, maturities, and financing needs through the transition; and
+- the primary regulatory, contractual, or transaction document when it drives the change.
+
+## Valuation
+
+Build explicit annual failure, partial-success, and stronger-success cases. Use
+`dcf.py forecast` when FCFF changes sign or margins step through a transition. Do not give the
+company its target margin immediately; model implementation cost, timing, taxes, working capital,
+reinvestment, financing, and dilution.
+
+EPV or asset value may provide a comparison for current operations, but neither is a floor when
+cash burn, liabilities, or deterioration continue. Value any disposed or retained pieces on the
+post-transaction capital structure.
+
+## Disqualifiers and counterevidence
+
+Mark down or reject the case when:
+
+- no specific mechanism connects actions to cash flow;
+- reported progress relies on exclusions while cash economics do not improve;
+- the balance sheet runs out before evidence should arrive;
+- savings are offset by lost revenue, reinvestment, or stranded costs;
+- the apparent inflection is an ordinary cycle rebound or temporary comparison;
+- management has repeatedly missed similar plans; or
+- price already requires successful execution with little downside protection.
+
+The memo should specify milestones, dates, cash runway, and the evidence that would distinguish a
+delay from a broken mechanism.
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_competitive.md b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_competitive.md
index 4a5eaf2..87186d8 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_competitive.md
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_competitive.md
@@ -1,123 +1,115 @@
-# Competitive & industry analysis - filings first, web for the gaps
-
-Phase 4 of the loop. A normalized earnings number is only as trustworthy as the moat under
-it: durable returns require a durable *reason*. This phase establishes industry structure,
-the company's place in it, and - the hard, decisive part - its **relative** competitive
-advantage. Assert nothing; explain the moat *mechanically* or concede there isn't one.
-
-The governing rule of the stack applies here with full force: **SEC filings are the default
-and the grounding; the web fills only what filings genuinely cannot.** Filings are primary,
-auditable, and citable; the web is a labeled supplement that must never silently outrank a
-filing.
-
-## What filings give you - more than people expect
-
-Before touching the web, exhaust the documents. A surprising amount of "qualitative" insight
-is sitting in EDGAR, already auditable:
-
-- **The subject's 10-K.** Item 1 (Business) describes competition, customers, suppliers, and
-  segments in the company's own words. Item 1A (Risk Factors) is a candid map of what
-  management fears - read it as a competitive document, not boilerplate. The MD&A (Item 7)
-  explains *why* the numbers moved.
-- **Peers' own filings - the high-leverage move.** `market-scout` hands you the **peer
-  set**. Pull each peer's recent **8-Ks, 10-Qs, and 10-K** and read
-  their management commentary: pricing actions, demand color, capacity, who's winning share.
-  Triangulating the same quarter across three competitors' filings is primary-source
-  competitive intelligence you can cite [V] - often sharper than any third-party take.
-- **Industry structure from the numbers.** Compare gross and operating margins, returns on
-  capital, capital intensity, and growth across the peer set. Persistent margin or ROIC
-  gaps are the *quantitative fingerprint* of a moat (or its absence) - pricing power, scale
-  economics, switching costs show up here before anyone writes them down.
-
-## What only the web can give - and how to use it
-
-Some questions no filing answers, and these are exactly where competitive theses are won or
-lost. Go to the web for:
-
-- **Relative positioning and market share** - who's actually winning, and the trend.
-- **Pricing dynamics and channel checks** - real-world price moves, distribution, customer
-  satisfaction, churn anecdotes.
-- **Industry tailwinds/headwinds** - regulation, technology shifts, end-market demand.
-- **Management quality and track record** - beyond the proxy's bare facts.
-
-When you do, observe the discipline that keeps the memo trustworthy:
-
-- **Attribute and date every web claim**, and prefer **primary** sources - company IR decks,
-  regulators, standards bodies, trade associations - over aggregators and secondary
-  commentary.
-- **Mark it [W]** in the memo so the reader can weight it differently from a filed fact.
-- **Never let a web assertion override a filing** without saying so explicitly and explaining
-  why you believe the web over the document.
-- **Separate fact from sentiment.** "Revenue grew 30%" (checkable) is not "analysts love the
-  story" (mood). Both can matter; don't let the second masquerade as the first.
-
-## The output of this phase
-
-A clear verdict on competitive position you can defend:
-
-1. **Industry structure** - concentration, rivalry, where the profit pools sit, the
-   secular direction of travel.
-2. **The company's position** - leader/challenger/niche, and the *evidence* (the margin/ROIC
-   gap vs. peers, share trend, customer captivity).
-3. **The moat, named and tested** - which specific mechanism (scale, network, switching
-   costs, brand/share-of-mind, low-cost production, regulatory) and *why it persists*. State
-   what would erode it; a moat you can't imagine breaching is a moat you haven't examined.
-
-Feed this straight into valuation: the strength and *durability* of the moat is what justifies
-the growth runway and the discount rate you'll defend in phase 5.
-
-## Quantify impact, don't just list forces
-
-The most common failure in competitive analysis is **cataloguing without quantifying.**
-Listing five barriers to entry or four competitive threats is not analysis - it is
-inventory. The reader needs to understand *how much each force matters* to the thesis.
-For every competitive strength, weakness, threat, or moat mechanism, answer three
-questions:
-
-1. **How big is it?** Attach a number, a share, a dollar figure, or a rate. "High
-   switching costs" is a label; "multi-year contracts with 95%+ renewal rates and
-   12-18 month migration timelines" is evidence. "Competition is intensifying" is mood;
-   "Motorola's Command Center division grew 14% last year and now holds ~30% of the
-   call-handling market" is a fact you can reason from.
-
-2. **How fast is it moving?** A static snapshot is not enough. Is the competitor
-   gaining share, losing it, or flat? Is the technology threat emerging (R&D stage),
-   arriving (first deployments), or mature (already displacing incumbents)? A threat
-   that is five years away at current pace is a different input to the thesis than one
-   that is already taking share. Cite the trajectory, not just the position.
-
-3. **What is the dollar impact on *this company* if it plays out?** Translate the
-   competitive force into revenue, margin, or FCF impact on the subject. "Cloud-native
-   architectures could lower barriers" becomes "if a cloud-native entrant captured 10%
-   of the addressable NG9-1-1 market over 5 years, that's ~$12M/yr of revenue at risk
-   for Allerium, or ~5% of current revenue." Now the reader can weigh it. A risk you
-   can't size is a risk you haven't understood.
-
-### Applying this to strengths and moats
-
-The same discipline applies to the bull case. "Strong installed base" is a label;
-"4,200 PSAPs on the platform with an average contract life of 7 years and a historical
-churn rate below 3%" is a moat you can underwrite. "Switching costs are high" is an
-assertion; "the Kentucky statewide migration took 8 months of planning and 4 months of
-execution for 12 PSAPs, and the state has 120 total" tells you *how* high.
-
-When you can't find the number, say so - mark it [A] and flag it as a gap the reader
-should investigate. An honest "I couldn't quantify this" is more useful than a
-confident-sounding assertion that melts under scrutiny.
-
-### Applying this to risks and threats
-
-Every risk factor in the memo should pass a **"so what" test**: if this risk
-materializes, what happens to revenue, margins, or FCF - and over what timeframe?
-A risk without an impact estimate is a worry, not an analysis. The pre-mortem
-(phase 6) is where you stress-test the risks against the thesis; the competitive
-section is where you *size* them so the pre-mortem has something to work with.
-
-Examples of the shift from listing to quantifying:
-
-| Listing (weak) | Quantifying (strong) |
-| :-- | :-- |
-| "Competition from larger players" | "Competitor X's revenue in the segment grew 14% YoY to ~$X00M; their new platform has been deployed in N states, directly overlapping with the subject's TAM" |
-| "Technology disruption risk" | "Cloud-native entrants have raised $X00M in VC funding and signed pilot contracts with N customers; at current adoption rates, they could reach ~5% market penetration by 2028" |
-| "Customer concentration" | "Top customer is ~25% of segment revenue (~$56M); the contract runs through 2029, but loss at renewal would cut segment EBITDA by ~$15M" |
-| "High switching costs" | "A statewide migration took 8 months planning + 4 months execution for 12 of 120 sites; full cutover expected to take 3+ years, creating de facto lock-in" |
+# Competitive and industry analysis
+
+Use this guide to determine whether the economics in the model can persist. The goal is not a
+list of moat labels or risk factors; it is a causal account of where industry profits come from,
+why this company captures its share, and what evidence would show that position changing.
+
+## Start with the question, then choose sources
+
+Use the source authoritative for each claim rather than imposing one universal source order.
+
+- **Issuer filings and exhibits:** reported segments, customer concentration, contracts,
+  capacity, risk disclosures, and management's explanation of results. They are primary records
+  of the issuer's disclosure, not independent proof of market position.
+- **Peer filings and calls:** competitors' reported demand, pricing, capacity, strategy, and
+  financial outcomes. Select a few economically relevant peers; an automated industry list is a
+  candidate set, not ground truth.
+- **Regulators, courts, standards bodies, and government data:** rules, licenses, enforcement,
+  market statistics, and legal status.
+- **Customers, suppliers, product documentation, procurement records, and trade data:** buying
+  criteria, switching friction, price, reliability, channel behavior, and adoption.
+- **Independent research and reporting:** useful for discovery and triangulation. Assess source
+  access, method, date, incentives, and whether the claim can be checked directly.
+
+Cite and date material evidence. Use `[V]` for facts checked in an authoritative primary record
+and `[W]` for external or secondary evidence. When sources disagree, preserve the disagreement
+and explain which assumption the valuation uses.
+
+## Map the industry economics
+
+Answer the questions that determine profit durability:
+
+1. **Value chain:** who supplies, distributes, pays, uses, and captures gross profit?
+2. **Market definition:** what product, customer, geography, and time period does a share or TAM
+   figure actually cover?
+3. **Structure:** concentration, capacity, entry and exit, substitutes, regulation, bargaining
+   power, and capital intensity.
+4. **Buying decision:** which attributes decide a purchase, who bears switching cost, and how
+   often a customer can reconsider?
+5. **Rate of change:** technology, regulation, supply, customer behavior, and new business
+   models that could alter the profit pool.
+
+Avoid top-down market labels that mix unlike products or geographies. Reconcile market-size and
+share estimates to company revenue where possible.
+
+## Select and compare peers
+
+Choose peers based on the economic question: product overlap, customer set, cost structure,
+geography, maturity, or capital intensity. Different questions may need different peer sets.
+Document why each peer belongs.
+
+Compare a multi-period set of relevant measures, which may include organic growth, unit volume,
+price/mix, gross margin, incremental margin, retention, capital intensity, ROIC, and customer
+concentration. Persistent differences are clues, not automatic proof of a moat. Test alternative
+explanations such as accounting policy, mix, geography, underinvestment, leverage, or a temporary
+cycle position.
+
+## Explain advantage as a mechanism
+
+For each claimed advantage, complete the chain:
+
+```text
+asset, capability, or structural position
+→ customer or cost consequence
+→ observable operating evidence
+→ economic outcome
+→ reason competitors cannot quickly copy or neutralize it
+```
+
+Examples of mechanisms include scale economies, network effects, switching costs, scarce assets,
+regulatory position, process advantage, brand, distribution, and counter-positioning. The label
+alone does no analytical work. State what would erode the mechanism and which metric would show
+that first.
+
+## Quantify without inventing precision
+
+Size forces when reliable data permit. Useful forms include:
+
+- exposure: affected revenue, customers, units, capacity, or gross profit;
+- sensitivity: effect of a price, volume, churn, utilization, or cost change;
+- trajectory: direction, rate, and time to materiality; and
+- scenario range: a bounded impact under explicit assumptions.
+
+Some risks are discontinuous, legal, behavioral, or poorly disclosed. Do not fabricate a point
+estimate merely because a template asks for one. Use a range, break-even calculation, observable
+leading indicator, or `[A]` gap. Explain whether the unknown is capable of changing the decision.
+
+## Separate evidence from inference
+
+A contract term can be `[V]`; “therefore customers are captive” is an inference. A peer's claim
+that it gained share verifies the claim was made, not the share gain. Tie inferences to multiple
+observable premises when possible:
+
+- renewal or churn history;
+- realized price versus input cost;
+- win/loss or backlog conversion;
+- gross-margin and incremental-margin persistence;
+- customer concentration and cohort behavior;
+- replacement cycle or migration effort; and
+- competitor investment and capacity response.
+
+Treat management tone and analyst questions as leads, not measurements.
+
+## Output
+
+Conclude with a compact underwriting view:
+
+1. market and profit-pool definition;
+2. the company's position and relevant peers;
+3. two or three mechanisms that matter, with evidence and erosion tests;
+4. material threats and their best-supported ranges or indicators;
+5. implications for growth, margins, reinvestment, and valuation; and
+6. unresolved evidence gaps.
+
+The section earns its place only if it changes an assumption, probability, risk assessment, or
+monitorable in the thesis.
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_normalization.md b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_normalization.md
index 905a3ff..ecbeb0f 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_normalization.md
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_normalization.md
@@ -1,137 +1,159 @@
-# Normalization — from GAAP to owner earnings
-
-Phase 3 of the loop. The goal is the business's *real, repeatable* earning power — what an
-owner would actually pocket — not the accounting surface. GAAP is a starting point, not the
-answer: it mixes one-offs with the run-rate, expenses real investment as if it were waste
-(and vice-versa), and hides economics in the footnotes. Your job is to un-distort it, and —
-per the prime directive — to **name every adjustment** so a reader can undo it. An
-unexplained "adjusted" number is exactly the kind of laundered guess this skill exists to
-avoid.
-
-Drive `sec-edgar-skill` to pull the statements (`sec-edgar-skill`'s `parse_financials.py` → CSV) and the
-relevant footnotes (grep the cached 10-K); do the reasoning here.
-
-## Owner earnings — the target number
-
-Start from the Buffett definition and adjust toward cash an owner could remove without
-harming the business:
-
-```text
-Owner earnings = net income
-              + depreciation & amortization
-              + other non-cash charges
-              − maintenance capex            (NOT total capex — see below)
-              ± normalized working-capital change
-              − real stock-based compensation cost
-```
-
-The art is in three places, and each is a judgment you must show your work on:
-
-### 1. Maintenance vs. growth capex
-
-Total capex on the cash-flow statement bundles "keep the lights on" with "build the future."
-Only **maintenance** capex belongs in owner earnings; growth capex is optional spending you
-can value separately. Estimate maintenance capex from D&A as a floor, from management's own
-split if they disclose one [V], from unit economics (capex per store/rig/MW at steady
-state), or from history (capex in no-growth years). State which method and why — a
-compounder's value swings hard on this number.
-
-### 2. Working capital — separate structural from one-off
-
-A growing business consumes working capital; a shrinking or seasonal one releases it. Pull
-the *normalized* draw, not a single year's swing, and watch for channel-stuffing or a
-one-time release flattering operating cash flow.
-
-### 3. Stock-based comp is a real expense
-
-It is non-cash but not free — it transfers ownership. Subtract it, and fold the resulting
-dilution into the share count (treasury-stock method) rather than admiring a "cash" number
-that quietly grows the shares 4% a year. For hypergrowth names this is often *the* swing
-factor between "profitable" and not.
-
-## Common distortions to undo
-
-- **Deferred / subscription revenue.** Cash collected up front can make GAAP *understate*
-  real earnings (a healthy subscription book) or overstate durability — read the deferred
-  revenue footnote and decide which.
-- **Leases.** Post-ASC 842, operating leases are on the balance sheet; treat lease
-  obligations as the debt-like commitments they are when you compute net debt and TEV.
-- **One-offs and "non-recurring" items that recur.** Restructuring every year is an
-  operating cost, not a special item. Back out the genuinely one-time; keep the rest.
-- **Acquired growth vs. organic.** Strip the contribution of acquisitions to see the
-  organic engine; a roll-up's "growth" can be capital consumption in disguise.
-- **Non-operating noise.** Pension mark-to-market, FX, fair-value swings on securities —
-  separate from operating earning power.
-
-## Show the trend, not a snapshot
-
-A single normalized year can be cherry-picked or flattered. Build the **year-by-year
-capital-allocation table** — it is the most persuasive object in the memo because the trend
-argues for itself:
-
-```text
-            Shares(M)   Net debt($M)   Reinvested($M)   ROIC(%)   FCF/share
-FY-4          15.2         420            …               …          …
-FY-3          13.6         360
-FY-2          11.1         300
-FY-1          10.4         210
-FY0            9.2         120
-```
-
-Falling share count, falling debt, rising returns on retained capital — that picture tells
-the reader how management actually behaves, which no single ratio can.
-
-## When the thesis depends on a new revenue stream: model the unit economics
-
-Normalization looks backward — it un-distorts what the business *has* earned. But many
-theses (turnarounds, inflections, hypergrowth pivots, special situations) depend on a
-revenue stream or business model that **doesn’t yet exist in the trailing financials.**
-When the valuation’s base or bull case rests on a new stream, the memo must model its
-unit economics explicitly — not just cite a management TAM estimate and plug a growth
-rate into the DCF.
-
-### What “model the unit economics” means
-
-Build a **bottom-up revenue bridge** from the new stream’s inputs to its contribution
-to FCF. The bridge should answer:
-
-1. **What is the unit of sale?** A per-device chip fee, a per-store contribution, a
-   per-seat SaaS subscription, a per-unit margin on hardware — name it.
-2. **What does one unit cost to deliver?** COGS, fulfillment, support, platform costs.
-   If the company hasn’t disclosed this, benchmark against the closest analog and mark
-   it [A].
-3. **How many units does the scenario assume?** Tie this to something observable —
-   the number of customers in the pipeline, the addressable installed base, the
-   contract backlog — not just a top-down TAM percentage.
-4. **What is the resulting gross margin and contribution margin?** Show the math.
-5. **How does this flow through to FCF?** After incremental SG&A, R&D, capex, and
-   working capital required to support the new stream.
-
-The bridge makes the assumption *auditable*. A reader who disagrees with your per-unit
-fee or your customer count can re-run the math; a reader who sees only “$5–20M in
-annual SaaS revenue per customer [A]” cannot. The bridge also forces *you* to confront
-whether the numbers are internally consistent: if the per-device fee implies a price
-point higher than the competitor’s whole product, the thesis has a problem you’d rather
-find now.
-
-### When to do this
-
-Any time the valuation’s base or bull case assigns material value to a revenue stream
-that is pre-revenue, in pilot, or represents a business model change from the trailing
-financials. Examples:
-
-- A regulatory catalyst opens a new market the company hasn’t yet entered (ISPR’s IKE
-  age-gating chip in the flavored ENDS market)
-- A partnership or JV creates a new product category (WRBY’s Google smart-glasses)
-- A divestiture or restructuring changes the margin profile (CMTL’s Allerium post-S&S)
-- A platform or marketplace layer is being built on top of an existing product
-
-If the new stream is immaterial to the thesis (“a small adjacent opportunity”), a
-sentence suffices. If it’s load-bearing, the bridge is mandatory.
-
-## The honesty check
-
-Every normalized figure is an [E]stimate built on an [A]ssumption. Mark them as such in the
-memo, state the assumption inline, and make sure the thesis survives the *conservative* end
-of each. If owner earnings only works on your aggressive maintenance-capex number, that's not
-a thesis — that's a hope with a spreadsheet.
+# Normalization — reported results to economic cash flow
+
+Use this guide when reported earnings do not represent the repeatable cash economics relevant
+to the thesis. Normalization is a reconciliation, not permission to remove unpleasant costs.
+Show each adjustment, source period, rationale, tax treatment, and effect so the reader can
+reverse it.
+
+## Choose the cash-flow basis first
+
+Do not mix enterprise and equity cash flows.
+
+### Free cash flow to the firm (FCFF)
+
+Use FCFF for the bundled DCF and EPV scripts:
+
+```text
+FCFF = EBIT × (1 − normalized cash tax rate)
+     + D&A and other justified non-cash add-backs
+     − capital expenditure
+     − increase in operating working capital
+```
+
+Do not use “non-cash” alone as justification to add back a recurring economic cost such as stock
+compensation. FCFF is before interest and net borrowing. Discount it at WACC to value operations,
+then bridge from enterprise value to common equity by adding non-operating assets and subtracting net debt,
+preferred stock, minority interests, pension deficits, and other senior claims as appropriate.
+Do not hide those items inside a label called net debt; show the bridge in the memo.
+
+### Owner earnings or free cash flow to equity (FCFE)
+
+A cash flow starting from net income or cash from operations is after interest under US GAAP and
+is generally an equity cash flow. IFRS presentation can classify interest differently, so
+reconcile it explicitly. Discount FCFE at the cost of equity and do not subtract debt again. The
+bundled DCF does not model FCFE.
+
+Whichever basis you use, reconcile it to the statements. Label units, currency, fiscal period,
+and whether each figure is reported `[V]`, estimated `[E]`, or assumed `[A]`.
+
+## Recurring versus non-recurring
+
+Use a multi-period history and ask what a steady owner must expect to recur.
+
+- Remove a gain or loss only when the underlying event is genuinely non-operating or unlikely
+  to recur. Repeated restructuring, litigation, acquisition, or “one-time” costs belong in
+  normalized economics unless the operating mechanism has demonstrably changed.
+- Normalize taxes using the expected cash burden, including jurisdiction mix, credits, NOLs,
+  and expiry. Do not adopt a headline statutory rate by default.
+- Separate acquired growth from organic growth and include the acquisition spending required
+  to sustain a roll-up's apparent growth.
+- Distinguish temporary commodity, foreign-exchange, pension, fair-value, and working-capital
+  effects from a changed run rate.
+
+Present reported-to-normalized bridges for the periods that matter. A single adjusted year is
+usually too easy to cherry-pick.
+
+## Maintenance and growth investment
+
+Total capex combines replacement, compliance, capacity, and expansion. Estimate maintenance
+capex by triangulating evidence such as:
+
+- management's disclosed split, treated as an issuer estimate rather than objective fact;
+- physical units, replacement cycles, utilization, and current replacement cost;
+- capex during periods with little capacity growth;
+- depreciation by asset class, useful life, asset age, and inflation; and
+- peer asset intensity and sustaining-capex disclosures.
+
+D&A is a reference point, not a universal floor or ceiling. Old assets and inflation can make
+replacement cost exceed depreciation; overbuilt capacity or accelerated depreciation can do the
+opposite. If the split is uncertain, use a range and show how valuation changes.
+
+A growth project is not economically free because it is excluded from “maintenance” capex.
+Connect growth investment to incremental revenue, margins, and returns on incremental capital.
+
+## Working capital and deferred revenue
+
+Use operating working capital and preserve signs: an increase is a use of cash; a decrease is a
+source. Normalize seasonal or event-driven swings with comparable dates and multiple periods.
+Investigate receivable growth, inventory aging, payables extension, factoring, and channel
+loading before treating a cash release as repeatable.
+
+Deferred revenue is customer financing and a timing difference, not extra revenue to add back
+mechanically. Its change already affects operating cash flow. Analyze billings, remaining
+performance obligations, refund obligations, churn, and the future delivery cost; then model the
+cash timing consistently without counting the same inflow twice.
+
+## Stock-based compensation and dilution
+
+Stock compensation is an economic cost, but common starting points treat it differently:
+
+- GAAP EBIT and net income already expense it. Do not subtract the same expense again from an
+  EBIT-based FCFF unless you first added it back.
+- Cash from operations adds the non-cash expense back. A CFO-minus-capex measure therefore needs
+  an explicit treatment: retain the GAAP expense in a reconstructed FCFF, subtract an estimate
+  of ongoing grants, or model the cash needed to offset dilution.
+- Reflect outstanding in-the-money instruments in diluted shares or value them separately.
+  Model future grants consistently with operating margins. Do not charge the full compensation
+  expense and an unrelated full dilution penalty without reconciling the overlap.
+
+Show basic and diluted share-count history, grants, exercises, repurchases, and net issuance.
+Repurchases that merely offset compensation are not a return of capital.
+
+## Leases
+
+Lease treatment must match the cash flow, capital structure, and comparison metric.
+
+- If rent remains an operating expense and cash outflow, do not also add the full lease
+  liability to debt without adjusting the earnings and cash-flow basis.
+- If leases are capitalized as financing, add back the financing component consistently,
+  capitalize the obligation, and use lease-adjusted peer metrics.
+
+Either convention can be useful; mixing them double-counts the lease burden.
+
+## A useful operating history
+
+Choose rows and years for the business rather than forcing a fixed table. A typical operating
+company history may include:
+
+| Period | Revenue | Organic growth | EBIT margin | FCFF | Diluted shares | Net debt | ROIC |
+| :-- | --: | --: | --: | --: | --: | --: | --: |
+| [FY-2] | | | | | | | |
+| [FY-1] | | | | | | | |
+| [FY0] | | | | | | | |
+
+For a cyclical, span a full cycle. For a turnaround, add quarterly bridge metrics. For a unit
+model, show mature cohorts or stores. Explain denominator choices for ROIC and compute return on
+incremental capital only across periods where the comparison is meaningful.
+
+## New streams and changed economics
+
+When a material scenario depends on a stream not represented in trailing results, bridge from
+observable drivers rather than applying a TAM percentage:
+
+```text
+addressable units
+× adoption or penetration
+× price per unit
+= revenue
+× contribution margin
+− incremental fixed cost
+− capex and working-capital needs
+= incremental FCFF
+```
+
+Use the actual economic unit: customer, seat, location, device, transaction, capacity unit, or
+contract. Source price, volume, churn, utilization, cost to serve, and timing separately. Use
+ranges when inputs are sparse. Reconcile the stream to consolidated revenue and costs so shared
+expenses and cannibalization are not omitted.
+
+## Final check
+
+For each adjustment, ask:
+
+1. Is it already reflected elsewhere in the cash flow, share count, or enterprise bridge?
+2. Does it recur economically even if accounting labels it unusual?
+3. Are tax and sign conventions correct?
+4. Is the estimate supported by more than management's preferred presentation?
+5. Does a conservative alternative materially change the decision?
+
+An unexplained adjusted number is an assumption, not a fact.
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_ownership_signals.md b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_ownership_signals.md
index 39895b1..9f4539f 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_ownership_signals.md
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_ownership_signals.md
@@ -1,58 +1,115 @@
-# Reading the ownership signal — 13F and insider data
-
-Phase 6 support. Pull the data via `sec-edgar-skill` (institutional 13F holders and Form 4
-insider transactions), then read it against the thesis. This guide is *how to interpret*
-each pattern; the fetch mechanics and flags live in `sec-edgar-skill` (`--help` is
-authoritative).
-
-13F output reports **share counts**, not dollar values (13F values are stale quarter-end
-prices). Convert to ownership percentages by dividing by shares outstanding from the
-`market-scout` snapshot or the latest 10-Q.
-
-## Institutional ownership (13F)
-
-Who is positioned and how the holder base has shifted — signals that feed the risk and
-catalyst assessment:
-
-- **Concentration risk:** if 3–5 holders own >30% of the float, a single redemption cycle
-  can crater the stock independent of fundamentals.
-- **Smart-money conviction:** are high-conviction value managers (Royce, Needham, Baupost)
-  building or trimming? A rising share count from a known deep-diver is a confirming signal;
-  a quiet exit is a warning.
-- **Activist presence:** a 13D/13G filer in the holder list may signal an upcoming catalyst
-  (board fight, strategic review, buyback demand).
-- **Passive vs. active mix:** a stock dominated by index funds (Vanguard, BlackRock, State
-  Street) has different liquidity and governance dynamics than one held by concentrated
-  active managers.
-- **Ownership trend vs. price:** rising institutional ownership into a falling price
-  suggests accumulation; the reverse suggests distribution. Cross-reference with the holder
-  history.
-
-## Insider activity (Form 4)
-
-Insider transactions are a direct, auditable read on whether the people running the business
-are aligned with outside shareholders — or quietly heading for the exits. Read them for
-adverse-selection risk:
-
-- **Open-market purchases by officers/directors** are the strongest signal — voluntary, with
-  the insider's own capital, filed publicly. A CEO or CFO buying $500K+ at current prices is
-  putting money where their mouth is; multiple insiders buying in the same window (a "cluster
-  buy") is stronger still.
-- **Selling context matters.** Discretionary sales by senior officers outside a pre-announced
-  10b5-1 plan — especially into strength or ahead of a known risk — are a red flag; routine
-  10b5-1, diversification, and tax-driven exercises are not. Read the pattern: clockwork
-  quarterly selling is a plan; three executives dumping the week after an earnings beat is
-  discretionary.
-- **Ownership level vs. compensation.** Cross-reference insider holdings (the "Remaining
-  Shares" column) against the proxy's compensation tables. Holdings 10x+ annual salary is
-  real skin in the game; holdings that round to zero against cash comp are not.
-- **Buy/sell ratio and trend.** A ratio well above 1x (net buying) over the past 6–12 months
-  is confirming; well below 1x (net selling) into a long you are building is a direct
-  adverse-selection warning — the best-informed people are reducing exposure.
-- **Activity at inflection points.** The most informative trades cluster around events. An
-  insider buying after a 40% drawdown thinks the market overreacted; an insider selling ahead
-  of a product launch they have been hyping is telling you the opposite.
-- **Foreign private issuers (FPIs):** FPIs are exempt from Section 16 and do not file Forms
-  3/4/5 on EDGAR. Insider data will be unavailable — note the gap in the memo, and check the
-  home-jurisdiction regulator (e.g. SEDAR+ for Canadian filers) if the thesis depends on
-  insider alignment.
+# Ownership, insider activity, incentives, and governance
+
+Use ownership evidence when it can change alignment, liquidity, control, dilution, governance,
+or the path to value. It is supporting evidence, not a substitute for operating work. Pull the
+underlying records through `sec-edgar-skill` and follow that skill's current guides for retrieval
+and form semantics.
+
+## 13F — limited institutional position evidence
+
+Form 13F is a delayed quarter-end disclosure by qualifying investment managers for reportable
+securities over which they exercise investment discretion. It is not a complete cap table or a
+record of all institutional trading.
+
+Before interpreting a result, record:
+
+- quarter-end date, filing date, and amendments;
+- issuer, security class, CUSIP, shares or principal amount, and option indicator;
+- whether the same exposure may appear under multiple managers or classes; and
+- a period-matched share denominator if calculating ownership percentage.
+
+Important limits:
+
+- reports can arrive up to the filing deadline after quarter end;
+- short positions and investment rationale are absent;
+- non-reportable securities, smaller managers, and some confidential positions are absent;
+- a quarter-end comparison does not show when or why a position changed; and
+- shares outstanding from a later date can distort an ownership percentage.
+
+Use manager position history to describe reported quarter-end changes. Do not call a change
+“accumulation into weakness” or “distribution” without compatible dates and additional evidence.
+A well-known manager's name does not validate the thesis; the position may be hedged, passive,
+small within its portfolio, or held for an unknown mandate.
+
+Potentially useful questions include:
+
+- Is reported ownership concentrated enough that a holder's exit could affect liquidity?
+- Are changes broad across independently selected active holders or driven by passive flows?
+- Do amendments, class changes, mergers, splits, or CUSIP changes explain the movement?
+
+Label computed percentages `[E]` and state the denominator and dates. Never present the sum of
+available 13F rows as definitive institutional ownership or float ownership.
+
+## 13D, 13G, and the proxy — beneficial ownership and control
+
+Schedules 13D/13G and proxy beneficial-ownership tables answer different questions from 13F.
+Use them directly when the thesis concerns a blockholder, activist purpose, voting control, or
+insider ownership.
+
+Check:
+
+- beneficial owner, group status, class, shares, percentage, and measurement date;
+- voting and dispositive power, direct versus indirect ownership, and footnotes;
+- amendments and changes in purpose;
+- Item 4 plans or proposals in Schedule 13D; and
+- dual-class rights, agreements, pledges, and related entities.
+
+Do not infer activism merely because a manager also appears in a 13F list. Schedule 13G is not a
+synonym for passive in every case; use the filing category and disclosed facts.
+
+## Form 4 — transaction evidence, not mind reading
+
+Read transaction code, price, shares, direct/indirect ownership, footnotes, derivative table,
+10b5-1 indicator, transaction date, filing date, and post-transaction amount together.
+
+- **P** is an open-market or private purchase and is usually the cleanest voluntary cash signal.
+- **S** is a sale, but motive requires context from footnotes, plan disclosure, ownership, size,
+  history, and compensation.
+- **M** is an option exercise, **F** commonly covers tax withholding, **A** is a grant or award,
+  and **G** is a gift. Do not mix these mechanically into a buy/sell ratio.
+
+Use the reported 10b5-1 checkbox and adoption date where available. Do not infer plan status
+solely from a regular trading cadence. Likewise, timing near an event does not establish intent.
+Phrase suspicious patterns as questions or risks unless direct evidence supports more.
+
+“Remaining shares” is a post-transaction amount for the reported ownership line. It may omit
+other direct, indirect, or derivative holdings and should not be treated automatically as the
+person's aggregate beneficial ownership. Use the proxy and all relevant ownership rows for an
+alignment calculation.
+
+Useful interpretation compares transaction size with prior holdings, compensation, liquidity,
+and the insider's history. Avoid universal dollar thresholds: materiality differs by person and
+company. Cluster purchases can be notable, but check whether they were voluntary, independently
+decided, and economically meaningful.
+
+## Incentives and governance
+
+For a full memo, review the proxy and related filings when these items can change value:
+
+- performance metrics and whether compensation rewards per-share value, growth at any price, or
+  a manipulable adjusted measure;
+- option and equity grants, dilution, repricing, and share-count history;
+- insider ownership, pledging, hedging, and change-of-control arrangements;
+- board independence, tenure, relevant expertise, and controller rights;
+- related-party transactions and conflicts;
+- capital-allocation record versus stated policy; and
+- voting structure, proposals, and minority protections.
+
+Compensation metrics are inputs to an incentive analysis, not proof of behavior. Compare what
+management was paid to do with what it actually did and the per-share outcome.
+
+Foreign private issuers may not file Forms 3/4/5 and may use home-country governance documents.
+State the gap and use the relevant regulator or issuer record when material.
+
+## Memo output
+
+Include only decision-relevant ownership and governance evidence. A compact section may contain:
+
+1. control and beneficial ownership;
+2. material 13F position changes with period caveats;
+3. voluntary insider purchases and material sales with transaction-code context;
+4. dilution and incentive alignment; and
+5. the resulting implication for liquidity, control, capital allocation, or thesis risk.
+
+Cite the filings and dates. If the data are unavailable, stale, or ambiguous, say so rather than
+turning absence into a positive or negative signal.
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_valuation.md b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_valuation.md
index b70a4ab..c0f5287 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_valuation.md
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/guide_valuation.md
@@ -1,197 +1,206 @@
-# Valuation — triangulation, weighted by archetype
-
-Phase 5 of the loop. Value is a *range*, reached from independent lenses, never a single
-false-precision point. Each lens has failure modes; the archetype tells you which to trust.
-The discipline is to make every assumption explicit and conservative enough that the thesis
-survives the *low* end — an intrinsic value that only works on heroic inputs is a hope, not a
-valuation.
-
-Run the arithmetic with the bundled scripts (`scripts/dcf.py`, `scripts/epv.py`) rather than
-re-deriving it each time; `--help` is the flag reference. Reason about the *inputs* here.
-
-## The four lenses
-
-### 1. Reverse-DCF — "what's already priced in" (first-class)
-
-Instead of forecasting, **invert**: solve for the stage-1 growth (or margin) the *current
-price* requires, then ask one question — *is that achievable?* This is the most honest lens
-when the future is uncertain, and for **hypergrowth** names it is often the *only* defensible
-one: rather than pretend you can forecast a hyper-growth decade, you judge whether the
-market's embedded expectation is too high, about right, or too low. Run it on every name as a
-reality check, even when another lens leads.
-
-```bash
-python scripts/dcf.py --mode reverse --price 150 --fcf0 1200 --years 10 \
-  --terminal-growth 3 --discount 10 --shares 500 --net-debt 200
-```
-
-Read the result against reality: if the price implies 22% FCF growth for a decade and the
-company has never exceeded 12%, the bar is too high regardless of how good the story sounds.
-
-### 2. Forward DCF — intrinsic value under your assumptions
-
-A two-stage discounted cash flow on normalized owner earnings (phase 3). Best for businesses
-with *predictable* cash flows — compounders, stable cash generators. Drive it with
-**bear/base/bull** growth cases (the script accepts comma-separated growth for a quick
-sensitivity table) so the output is a range, not a point.
-
-```bash
-python scripts/dcf.py --fcf0 1200 --growth 8,12,16 --years 10 --terminal-growth 3 \
-  --discount 10 --shares 500 --net-debt 200
-```
-
-When the FCF trajectory has a **structural bend** — the near-term growth rate differs
-materially from the long-run rate — a single stage-1 rate is a forced average that
-misrepresents both phases. Use the **three-stage model** by adding `--growth2` and
-`--years2`. Stage 1 captures the distinct near-term phase, stage 2 captures the subsequent
-normalized phase, then the terminal value. The output is a stage-1 × stage-2 sensitivity
-matrix. Reach for it whenever the business has an identifiable reason for the growth rate
-to change — not just turnarounds, but any shape where one rate doesn’t fit:
-
-- **Turnaround / inflection:** cost-outs, margin expansion, or debt paydown free up FCF
-  faster than revenue grows (stage 1), then revenue-driven growth takes over (stage 2).
-- **Hypergrowth investing phase:** heavy S&M/R&D depresses FCF now; once the business
-  scales past the investment hump, FCF inflects sharply (stage 1), then grows at a
-  mature-compounder rate (stage 2).
-- **Cyclical recovery:** earnings snap back from trough to mid-cycle (stage 1), then grow
-  at trend (stage 2).
-- **Regulatory / deployment wave:** a defined tailwind (NG9-1-1 rollout, 5G buildout)
-  drives elevated growth for a bounded period (stage 1), then steady-state (stage 2).
-- **Post-acquisition synergies:** integration savings land over 2–3 years (stage 1),
-  then organic growth resumes (stage 2).
-
-```bash
-python scripts/dcf.py --fcf0 5 --growth 25,35,50 --years 3 \
-  --growth2 5,8 --years2 7 --terminal-growth 2.5 --discount 12 \
-  --shares 30 --net-debt 66 --price 2.75
-```
-
-### 3. EPV — the no-growth floor
-
-Earnings Power Value capitalizes *current normalized* operating earnings with **no growth
-credit** — a conservative floor that answers "what's it worth if the growth never shows up?"
-Especially clarifying for cyclicals (use mid-cycle EBIT), deep-value, and any case where you
-don't want to pay for a future you can't underwrite.
-
-```bash
-python scripts/epv.py --ebit 600 --tax 21 --wacc 9 --shares 500 --net-debt 200
-```
-
-### 4. Relative multiples — the sanity check
-
-P/E, EV/EBIT, EV/Sales, P/FCF against the peer set (`market-scout` gives you the peers).
-Never a thesis on its own — "cheap vs. peers" can mean the whole group is
-mispriced or the company deserves its discount — but a vital cross-check on the absolute
-lenses, and the right primary lens for some special situations and asset plays.
-
-## Setting the inputs honestly
-
-The output is only as good as three judgment calls — show your work on each:
-
-- **Discount rate.** See the dedicated section below — this is the input most analysts get
-  wrong, and it deserves its own reasoning process.
-- **Terminal value.** This is usually most of a DCF's value, so it's where false precision
-  hides. Keep terminal growth at or below long-run GDP; sanity-check the implied terminal
-  multiple — if it bakes in a permanent premium multiple, you've smuggled optimism into the
-  tail.
-- **The base cash flow.** Use *normalized* owner earnings (phase 3), not a peak or trough
-  year. Garbage in, garbage out — most valuation errors are bad inputs, not bad arithmetic.
-
-## Discount rate — reason it, don't default it
-
-The discount rate is the single most levered input in a DCF: a 300bps change can move
-intrinsic value by 30–50%. Yet it is the input most often set by reflex (“10% for
-equity”) rather than by reasoning. **Every memo must derive and justify its discount rate
-in a dedicated subsection of the valuation section.** A number without a rationale is an
-assumption the reader cannot audit — and cannot trust.
-
-### The reasoning process (do this every time)
-
-1. **Start with the business, not the stock.** Ask: *what is the risk profile of the
-   underlying cash flows?* A government-contracted, recurring-revenue oligopoly with
-   mandated demand has fundamentally different cash-flow risk than a single-product
-   biotech or a commodity cyclical. The business risk should drive the unlevered cost of
-   capital — the stock’s trading volatility and capital structure are layered on top.
-
-2. **Anchor to peers, not defaults.** Pull betas for 2–4 closest business-model peers
-   from `market-scout` (yfinance’s `.info["beta"]`). Unlever each using Hamada:
-   `beta_u = beta_l / (1 + (1 - tax_rate) * D/E)`. Average the unlevered betas — this
-   is the *business risk* of the peer group, stripped of each company’s financing
-   choices.
-
-3. **Re-lever for the subject’s capital structure.** Use the company’s *pro-forma or
-   target* D/E (not necessarily today’s, if the capital structure is in transition):
-   `beta_l = beta_u * (1 + (1 - tax_rate) * D/E)`. Then CAPM:
-   `Ke = Rf + beta_l * ERP`. Use the current 10-year Treasury yield for Rf and a
-   long-run ERP of 5–6% (Damodaran’s implied ERP is the standard reference).
-
-4. **Compute WACC if doing an enterprise DCF.** Weight cost of equity and after-tax
-   cost of debt by their shares of total capital. If there is preferred equity or
-   mezzanine debt, include it as a separate tranche at its own cost.
-
-5. **Sanity-check against the business description.** Before using the number, ask:
-   *does this rate make sense for what this business actually is?* A few guideposts:
-
-   | Business type | Typical WACC range | Why |
-   | :-- | :-- | :-- |
-   | Regulated utility / infrastructure concession | 6–8% | Contracted, inflation-linked, near-monopoly |
-   | Mission-critical gov-contracted recurring revenue | 8–10% | Mandated demand, high switching costs, oligopoly |
-   | Stable consumer/enterprise compounder | 9–11% | Durable moat, predictable FCF |
-   | Cyclical industrial / commodity | 10–13% | Earnings volatility, capital intensity |
-   | Growth-stage / unproven unit economics | 12–15% | Execution risk, cash burn, TAM uncertainty |
-   | Distressed / binary outcome | 15%+ | Survival risk, option-like payoff |
-
-   If your derived WACC lands far outside the range for the business type, re-examine
-   your inputs — the beta sample, the D/E assumption, or the ERP. The guideposts are
-   not rules, but a derived rate that contradicts the business description is a red flag.
-
-6. **Separate business risk from financial risk.** When the capital structure is
-   distressed or in transition (turnarounds, post-divestiture, over-leveraged), the
-   *business* may deserve a low discount rate while the *equity* deserves a high one.
-   Make this explicit: run the DCF at the business-appropriate WACC to value the
-   enterprise, then subtract net debt and senior claims to get equity value. Do not
-   double-count by using a high WACC *and* subtracting the debt — that penalizes the
-   cash flows for leverage risk and then penalizes the equity again.
-
-7. **State it in the memo.** The valuation section must include a subsection titled
-   “**Discount Rate Derivation**” (or similar) that shows: the peer set used, their
-   betas and unlevered betas, the re-levered beta, the CAPM cost of equity, the WACC,
-   and the sanity check against the business description. A reader should be able to
-   disagree with your rate and re-run the DCF with their own — that’s the point.
-
-### Common mistakes
-
-- **Defaulting to 10% or 12%.** These are not reasoned rates; they are habits. 10% was
-  a reasonable equity return assumption when the risk-free rate was 4–5% and the ERP was
-  5–6%, but it says nothing about *this specific business*. Always derive.
-- **Using the stock’s own beta.** A distressed, thinly-traded small-cap will have a
-  high beta driven by liquidity and sentiment, not business risk. Use peer unlevered
-  betas to isolate the business risk, then re-lever.
-- **Double-counting leverage risk.** If you use a high WACC because the company is
-  leveraged, and then also subtract a large net-debt figure, you’re penalizing leverage
-  twice. The WACC already reflects the cost of the debt; subtracting net debt converts
-  enterprise value to equity value. Don’t inflate both.
-- **Ignoring capital structure transitions.** A turnaround that will be nearly debt-free
-  in 18 months should not be discounted at today’s levered cost of capital for a
-  10-year DCF. Use the *target* or *normalized* capital structure for the WACC, and
-  reflect the transition costs in the near-term cash flows instead.
-
-## Weighting by archetype
-
-Lean on the lens the business actually fits; report the others as cross-checks.
-
-| Archetype | Lead lens | Cross-check with |
-| :-- | :-- | :-- |
-| Compounder | Forward DCF (long stage-1 runway) | Reverse-DCF reality check; EPV floor |
-| Hypergrowth | **Reverse-DCF** (what's priced in) | Multiples; scenario forward DCF |
-| Cyclical | EPV on **mid-cycle** earnings | Normalized P/E; mid-cycle multiples |
-| Turnaround / inflection | Scenario DCF (post-inflection margins) | EPV today as downside floor |
-| Special situation | Event payoff / sum-of-parts | Multiples on the resulting pieces |
-| Deep value | Asset value / liquidation; EPV floor | Multiples; reverse-DCF for the catalyst |
-
-## The output
-
-A defensible **intrinsic-value range** (low–high, anchored to bear–bull), the **margin of
-safety** at today's price, and a plain statement of the *one or two assumptions the value is
-most sensitive to* — because that's where the next reader (and reality) will push hardest.
-Carry these straight into the verdict.
+# Valuation — match the method to the economics
+
+Valuation is a set of conditional claims, not a ritual. Choose methods that fit the business,
+state what each method assumes, and reconcile them to the same security, date, currency, share
+count, and capital structure. Multiple inapplicable methods do not create triangulation.
+
+The bundled scripts cover enterprise DCF and EPV for non-financial operating companies. They do
+not replace a segment model, asset appraisal, transaction waterfall, or probability tree.
+
+## Build the enterprise-to-equity bridge
+
+Before comparing per-share values, show the bridge:
+
+```text
+value of operating assets
++ excess cash and non-operating assets
+− funded debt
+− preferred and minority interests
+− pension deficits and other senior claims
+− value attributable to outstanding options or similar instruments, if not in shares
+= value of common equity
+÷ consistent diluted share count
+= value per share
+```
+
+Avoid burying all adjustments in “net debt.” Match the bridge date to the base cash flow and
+adjust for material subsequent transactions. Reconcile basic, reported diluted, and modeled
+future shares.
+
+## Enterprise DCF
+
+### Cash-flow basis
+
+The DCF script accepts free cash flow to the firm (FCFF): after-tax operating cash flow before
+interest and net borrowing. Discount FCFF at WACC to obtain enterprise value, then subtract net
+debt and other senior claims. Do not pass owner earnings or FCFE that already includes interest
+and then subtract debt again.
+
+Read `guide_normalization.md` for the reconciliation. A growing terminal state must include the
+reinvestment needed to support that growth; terminal FCFF cannot assume growth while silently
+removing its capital needs.
+
+### Choose the route
+
+Use the script path resolved from the installed skill.
+
+**Forward growth sensitivity** works for a positive, normalized FCFF base when a constant rate
+is a tolerable abstraction:
+
+```bash
+python "<skill-dir>/scripts/dcf.py" forward --fcff0 1200 --growth 8,12,16 \
+  --years 10 --terminal-growth 3 --wacc 10 --shares 500 --net-claims 200 --price 75
+```
+
+Comma-separated growth values vary growth while holding every other input fixed. They are a
+sensitivity, not complete bear/base/bull scenarios. Run separate commands when margins,
+reinvestment, WACC, dilution, or the capital structure also differ.
+
+**Explicit forecast** is preferable when FCFF begins negative or changes shape. Forecast each
+year from revenue, margin, tax, reinvestment, and working-capital drivers:
+
+```bash
+python "<skill-dir>/scripts/dcf.py" forecast --fcff=-20,10,45,80,110 \
+  --terminal-growth 2.5 --wacc 12 --shares 30 --net-claims 66 --price 8
+```
+
+The final explicit FCFF must be positive because it anchors a Gordon terminal value. Make the
+transition to stable economics plausible rather than jumping from an immature margin directly
+to perpetuity.
+
+**Reverse growth DCF** asks which constant positive-FCFF growth rate equates the model to price:
+
+```bash
+python "<skill-dir>/scripts/dcf.py" reverse --price 75 --fcff0 1200 --years 10 \
+  --terminal-growth 3 --wacc 10 --shares 500 --net-claims 200
+```
+
+The answer is conditional on every other input. It is informative only when positive base FCFF
+and the model shape represent the business. It does not solve for revenue growth, margin, or
+dilution, and it should not be presented as “the market's” unique forecast. For an immature
+business, construct an operating model and test combinations of scale, margin, reinvestment,
+and dilution that reconcile to price instead.
+
+### Terminal value
+
+A terminal state should be economically mature:
+
+- terminal growth is consistent with the currency and long-run market opportunity;
+- return on new capital and reinvestment support the growth rate;
+- margins and competitive position have faded or stabilized plausibly;
+- capital intensity, taxes, and dilution are normalized; and
+- WACC exceeds terminal growth.
+
+Report the terminal value as a percentage of enterprise value and cross-check its implied
+terminal multiple. A high percentage is not automatically wrong, but it identifies where the
+model is least anchored by near-term evidence.
+
+## Earnings Power Value
+
+EPV capitalizes normalized no-growth operating earnings at WACC. Without the optional
+maintenance-capex refinement, it assumes D&A and maintenance capex offset:
+
+```text
+normalized after-tax EBIT = EBIT × (1 − normalized cash tax rate)
+operating cash earnings    = after-tax EBIT + D&A − maintenance capex
+EPV of operations          = operating cash earnings ÷ WACC
+```
+
+Use the D&A refinement only when both D&A and maintenance capex are estimated on a consistent
+basis:
+
+```bash
+python "<skill-dir>/scripts/epv.py" --ebit 600 --tax 21 --wacc 9 \
+  --shares 500 --net-claims 200 --da 100 --maint-capex 85 --price 10
+```
+
+EPV is a no-growth operating case, not a guaranteed floor. It can overstate value when earnings
+are cyclical, assets are deteriorating, maintenance investment is understated, customers are
+leaving, or liabilities sit outside the model. For cyclicals, use defensible mid-cycle earnings
+and separately test trough liquidity.
+
+## Relative and transaction evidence
+
+Use multiples only when numerator, denominator, growth, accounting, leases, and capital
+structure are comparable. Match enterprise multiples with pre-interest measures and equity
+multiples with post-interest measures. Explain why a peer deserves the same or a different
+multiple; an automated peer table is only a candidate list.
+
+Useful anchors may include EV/EBIT, EV/FCFF, P/E, P/FCFE, unit value, replacement cost, and
+precedent transactions. Sales multiples require an explicit margin and reinvestment bridge.
+Historical multiples are evidence about prior expectations and rates, not intrinsic value.
+
+Asset plays and special situations generally require their own arithmetic:
+
+- sum-of-parts with segment-specific methods and corporate-cost allocation;
+- liquidation or realizable NAV with asset haircuts, liabilities, tax, and timing;
+- transaction outcomes with payoff, probability, timing, break value, and interim cash flows;
+  and
+- annualized expected return rather than an unadjusted spread.
+
+Do not turn uncertain legal interpretation into a precise probability without qualified support.
+
+## Discount rate
+
+No fixed WACC or required-return table is timeless or company-specific. Derive a rate from
+current inputs, document the date and sources, and sensitize it.
+
+For an enterprise DCF:
+
+```text
+cost of equity = risk-free rate + beta × equity risk premium
+WACC = E/(D+E) × cost of equity + D/(D+E) × pre-tax cost of debt × (1 − tax rate)
+```
+
+Add country or other risk components only when they are not already captured elsewhere. Use
+market-value capital weights where observable. Estimate debt cost from current borrowing terms,
+yield, or a defensible default spread rather than the historical coupon.
+
+A bottom-up beta can be useful: choose operationally comparable firms, unlever their equity
+betas using consistent market D/E and tax assumptions, take a robust central estimate, and
+re-lever for a defensible current or target capital structure. But beta is a noisy model input,
+not a fact. A thin or poor peer set may justify broader industry data, an alternative required
+return, or wider sensitivity rather than false precision.
+
+Using WACC for FCFF and then subtracting debt is not double-counting. WACC discounts operating
+cash flow using financing costs; the debt subtraction allocates enterprise value to common
+equity. Double-counting occurs when the same expected loss, lease burden, pension contribution,
+or distress effect is embedded in both cash flow and an additional adjustment without
+reconciliation.
+
+If leverage or survival changes across scenarios, reflect financing costs, refinancing,
+dilution, and default risk explicitly. A single normalized WACC can conceal the path dependency
+of a distressed equity.
+
+The memo should show enough of the derivation for a reader to replace the rate, but it need not
+force a ceremonial subsection or peer-beta table when another method is better supported.
+
+## Scenario design and margin of safety
+
+Name scenarios for the mechanism that differs, not merely bear/base/bull. At minimum disclose:
+
+- revenue or unit path;
+- operating margin and reinvestment;
+- taxes and working capital;
+- financing, dilution, and enterprise bridge;
+- discount and terminal assumptions; and
+- evidence supporting the scenario weight, if probabilities are used.
+
+Use sensitivity around the two or three variables that dominate value. Report value per share
+and the price discount or premium to each relevant outcome. Margin of safety is a conclusion
+about downside, uncertainty, and required return; no universal percentage substitutes for the
+quality of the inputs.
+
+## Method selection by thesis shape
+
+| Thesis shape | Usually useful | Common misuse |
+| :-- | :-- | :-- |
+| Compounder | operating DCF, reinvestment/runway cases, reverse check | extrapolating current ROIC forever |
+| Cash-burning growth | explicit operating forecast, price-reconciliation scenarios | growing a negative FCFF base |
+| Cyclical | mid-cycle EPV/DCF, trough balance sheet, asset or unit values | valuing peak earnings at a spot multiple |
+| Turnaround | explicit transition cases, failure case, financing path | applying target margins immediately |
+| Special situation | payoff tree, waterfall, SOTP, annualized return | DCF obscuring the binding event terms |
+| Deep value | realizable NAV/liquidation, burn and timing, EPV where durable | calling EPV or book value a hard floor |
+
+End with the range supported by the evidence, the assumptions that dominate it, and the
+conditions under which the range ceases to be useful.
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/memo_template.md b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/memo_template.md
index aecee28..c4b6990 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/memo_template.md
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/references/memo_template.md
@@ -1,151 +1,158 @@
-# The memo — standard due-diligence structure
-
-This is the deliverable. The memo *is* the product of the whole loop, and "pitch-ready"
-is the definition of done: complete and honest enough that a `pitch-like-lou` pitch could
-stand on it without inventing anything.
-
-A memo is an argument, not a form. Use this structure as a skeleton, but let the
-**archetype** decide where the weight goes — a compounder earns its keep in the economics
-and moat sections; a special-situation in the structural fact and the payoff; a hypergrowth
-name in the reverse-DCF and unit economics. Weight each section to the archetype; a tight
-six-page memo beats a padded twenty.
-
-## The honesty markup (use it throughout)
-
-The single most important habit: let the reader audit your confidence. Adopt a consistent
-convention and use it in every section — for example:
-
-- **[V]** verified — you read it in a named filing (give the form + accession or section).
-- **[E]** estimate — you computed or modeled it; state the assumption.
-- **[A]** assumption — you're taking it on faith; flag it for the reader to challenge.
-- **[W]** web — sourced from outside filings; attribute and date it.
-
-The markup is not bureaucracy. It is what separates a memo from propaganda: a reader can see
-at a glance which load-bearing claims are solid and which are your judgment.
-
-## Structure
-
-### 0. Stat header
-
-A compact, text-aligned block that orients the reader in five seconds. Compute, don't
-guess; name any adjustment.
-
-```text
-Ticker / Name            Price: [px]            Archetype: [one of the six]
-Market Cap ($M): [mc]    EPS (cur/fwd): [ ]     Verdict: [Long/Short/Pass/Watch]
-Net Debt ($M): [nd]      P/E: [x]               Conviction: [Low/Med/High]
-TEV ($M): [tev]          P/FCF: [x]             IV range: [low–high]
-Shares (M, dil): [sh]    TEV/EBIT: [x]          Margin of safety: [%]
-```
-
-*Calc discipline:* Net Debt = total debt − cash & marketable securities. TEV = market cap +
-net debt + cost of option dilution (treasury-stock method — bake it in, don't footnote it).
-FCF = operating cash flow − capex, with any normalization named.
-
-### 1. Thesis & variant perception
-
-Three to five sentences, punchline first. The core disconnect, then the **variant
-perception**: what do you believe that the market doesn't, and *why are you the one who's
-right*? If you can't name a variant perception, you have a description, not a thesis.
-
-### 2. Business overview
-
-How the company actually makes money — segments, unit of sale, who pays and why, revenue
-model, key economics — in plain language. If you can't explain it in one clean sentence,
-you're not ready to value it.
-
-### 3. Archetype & why it's the right lens
-
-Name the primary (and any secondary) archetype and justify it from the financials and
-business model. This tells the reader which questions the rest of the memo prioritizes.
-
-### 4. Financial analysis — the normalized economics
-
-The un-distorted earning power (see `guide_normalization.md`), not raw GAAP. Owner earnings
-/ FCF, returns on capital, margins and their drivers, working-capital behavior. Include the
-**capital-allocation track record as a year-by-year table** — share count, debt,
-reinvestment and the return on it — because the trend is the argument.
-
-**When the thesis depends on a new revenue stream** (pre-revenue JV, partnership product,
-market entry enabled by a regulatory change, post-restructuring margin profile), include a
-**unit-economics bridge** that builds from per-unit inputs (price, cost, volume) to the
-stream’s contribution to FCF. A management TAM estimate plugged into a DCF growth rate is
-not a model — it is a hope with a discount rate. See `guide_normalization.md` § “When the
-thesis depends on a new revenue stream.”
-
-### 5. Competitive position & industry
-
-Industry structure, the company's place in it, and *relative* competitive advantage —
-moat (or its absence) explained mechanically, not asserted. Ground in filings (incl. peers'
-filings); use web only for what filings can't give, and mark it [W].
-
-**Quantify, don't catalogue.** Every competitive strength, moat mechanism, and threat must
-be sized — how big, how fast it's moving, and what the dollar impact on *this company*
-would be if it plays out. “High switching costs” is a label; “3-year migration timelines
-and 95%+ renewal rates” is evidence. “Competition is intensifying” is mood; “Competitor X
-grew Y% last year and now holds Z% of the addressable market” is a fact the reader can
-reason from. A competitive force you can’t size is one you haven’t understood — mark it
-[A] and flag the gap. See `guide_competitive.md` § “Quantify impact.”
-
-### 6. Valuation
-
-Triangulated, never a single point (see `guide_valuation.md`). Show each lens, weighted by
-archetype, including a **reverse-DCF of what today's price implies**. Lay out
-**bear / base / bull** scenarios with their key assumptions, converge on an **intrinsic-value
-range**, and state the **margin of safety** at the current price.
-
-This section **must** include a **"Discount Rate Derivation"** subsection showing how the
-rate was reasoned - peer betas, the re-levered beta, the CAPM cost of equity, the WACC, and
-the sanity check against the business type (methodology in `guide_valuation.md` § "Discount
-rate"). A rate without a derivation is unauditable - the reader cannot disagree with it, so
-cannot trust it.
-
-### 7. Ownership — institutional holders and insider activity
-
-Who owns this stock, inside and out, and what the picture says about alignment and adverse
-selection. Pull 13F and Form 4 data via `sec-edgar-skill`, then read each pattern against
-`guide_ownership_signals.md`. Include:
-
-- **Institutional (13F):** top 10–15 holders (passive index vs. active/concentrated), the
-  ownership trend vs. price (accumulation or distribution), any notable
-  deep-value/activist/specialist holders, and concentration/forced-selling risk.
-- **Insider (Form 4):** a table of open-market buys/sells over the past 6–12 months
-  (distinguish voluntary P/S from routine M/F), the net buy/sell ratio, the key
-  buyers/sellers by name and role, aggregate insider ownership vs. compensation, and the FPI
-  Section-16 gap where it applies.
-
-Keep it to a table or two plus a paragraph of interpretation; it grounds the catalyst and
-risk sections. If the best-informed people are not aligned with your thesis, that fact
-belongs in the risk section.
-
-### 8. Risks & pre-mortem
-
-The bear case, in your own words and as strong as you can make it. Run the archetype's
-disqualifiers explicitly. Assume it's a year out and the thesis failed — what broke?
-Re-tag the load-bearing claims as verified vs. assumed; the assumed ones are your risks.
-
-**Every risk must pass the “so what” test.** State the *impact* — what happens to
-revenue, margins, or FCF if this risk materializes, and over what timeframe? A risk
-without a sized impact is a worry, not an analysis. Where possible, assign a probability
-(High/Medium/Low) and cite the evidence behind it. The pre-mortem narrative should
-reference the sized risks from the competitive section, not re-invent them as vague
-fears.
-
-### 9. Catalysts & monitorables
-
-Specific, ideally dated events or metrics that would confirm or break the thesis — a
-buyback, an uplisting, a margin-inflection quarter, a cohort metric, a regulatory date.
-"Re-rating" is not a catalyst; a mechanism or a date is. List what you'll watch to know if
-you're wrong early.
-
-### 10. Verdict & conviction
-
-The call — **Long / Short / Pass / Watch** — at the conviction the work supports, with a
-one-line rationale tying back to the variant perception and the margin of safety. If the
-digging was thin in places, say where; an honest hedge is part of the verdict.
-
-### 11. Appendix — sources
-
-The audit trail. Every filing used (form + accession number + section) and every web source
-(URL + date). This is what makes the memo checkable — and what a downstream pitch leans on
-when a skeptic pushes back.
+# Full due-diligence memo
+
+Use this skeleton for a requested deep dive. It is not a questionnaire: combine, reorder, or omit
+sections when that improves the argument, and add a section when the company's economics demand
+it. A special situation, cyclical, and compounder should not produce identical memos.
+
+## Evidence notation
+
+Use the notation consistently on load-bearing factual and model claims:
+
+- **[V]** checked against a cited authoritative primary record;
+- **[E]** calculated or modeled, with inputs and units;
+- **[A]** unresolved assumption, with its decision impact; and
+- **[W]** external, trade, channel, expert, or secondary evidence, named and dated.
+
+The tag does not replace a citation. Do not label an analytical inference `[V]` merely because
+its inputs are verified; state that it is an inference. Ordinary connective prose does not need
+a tag.
+
+## Header
+
+```markdown
+# [Company] ([Ticker / share class]) — investment memo
+**As of:** [date, time zone where relevant]
+**Question:** [decision being evaluated]
+**Decision:** [Long / Watch / Pass]
+**Conviction:** [plain-language level and why]
+```
+
+## Decision snapshot
+
+Select the small set of current metrics that orient this specific case. Do not reproduce a
+fixed stat block inherited from another pitch or fill irrelevant cells. Possibilities include:
+price and market value, enterprise value, diluted shares, net debt, normalized FCFF, valuation
+range, cycle position, unit metric, asset value, liquidity runway, or event spread. Label dates,
+periods, currencies, and adjustments.
+
+Then state in a few sentences:
+
+- what the market price appears to require;
+- the variant view, if one exists;
+- the decisive evidence;
+- what could make the view wrong; and
+- why the current price does or does not compensate for that uncertainty.
+
+If no differentiated view is established, say so. A clear pass is better than an invented
+variant perception.
+
+## Business and economic model
+
+Explain in plain language:
+
+- product or service, customer, payer, and unit of sale;
+- segments and where gross profit and cash flow arise;
+- pricing, volume, retention, cyclicality, and capital needs; and
+- the few operating variables that govern value.
+
+Name the analytical lens or lenses only if they sharpen the decision. Do not force the company
+into an archetype.
+
+## Reported-to-normalized economics
+
+Reconcile reported results to the cash-flow basis used in valuation. Include the periods and
+metrics that reveal the economics rather than a mandatory table. Show:
+
+- recurring versus non-recurring items;
+- organic versus acquired growth;
+- maintenance and growth investment;
+- working-capital and deferred-revenue timing;
+- stock compensation and diluted shares;
+- lease treatment; and
+- capital allocation and return on incremental capital where meaningful.
+
+Use `guide_normalization.md`. If a new stream or future margin structure carries material value,
+include a driver bridge from volume and price through costs, reinvestment, and FCFF.
+
+## Competitive and industry underwriting
+
+Define the relevant market and profit pool, identify economically comparable peers, and explain
+the company's position through mechanisms and evidence. Connect material advantages and threats
+to an operating assumption, scenario, or monitorable.
+
+Quantify where evidence supports it. Where it does not, use a range, break-even calculation,
+leading indicator, or explicit `[A]` gap rather than invented precision. Use
+`guide_competitive.md`.
+
+## Management, ownership, and governance
+
+Include this section when control, incentives, dilution, capital allocation, insider activity,
+or holder concentration can affect the outcome. Distinguish:
+
+- beneficial ownership and voting control from 13F positions;
+- voluntary Form 4 purchases and sales from grants, exercises, tax withholding, and gifts;
+- reported quarter-end 13F changes from inferred trading intent; and
+- compensation design from demonstrated capital-allocation behavior.
+
+Use `guide_ownership_signals.md`. Keep immaterial holder lists out of the memo.
+
+## Valuation and expectations
+
+Use methods that fit the business and reconcile each to common equity. State:
+
+- valuation date, currency, and current price;
+- reported-to-normalized cash-flow bridge;
+- enterprise-to-equity bridge and diluted shares;
+- explicit operating scenarios and their evidence;
+- discount-rate and terminal assumptions;
+- value per share or payoff under relevant outcomes; and
+- price discount/premium, downside, and required return.
+
+A reverse DCF is useful only if its positive-FCFF model describes the company. EPV is a no-growth
+case, not a hard floor. Growth sensitivity alone is not a bear/base/bull analysis when margins,
+capital needs, dilution, or financing also change. Use `guide_valuation.md`.
+
+Summarize the assumptions that dominate the result and show the sensitivity that matters. Do
+not require a ceremonial peer-beta table if another discount-rate method is better supported.
+
+## Countercase and pre-mortem
+
+Make the strongest good-faith case against owning the security. Run the relevant archetype
+disqualifiers, then answer:
+
+- Which fact, inference, or assumption is most likely wrong?
+- What permanent impairment path exists?
+- What financing, dilution, control, or liquidity event could intervene?
+- Which downside estimate is genuinely anchored, and which is not?
+- If the thesis has failed one year from now, what probably happened?
+
+Size material effects when the evidence supports it. For discontinuous or poorly disclosed
+risks, describe the mechanism, exposure, leading indicator, and decision impact instead of
+inventing a probability.
+
+## Catalysts, falsifiers, and monitorables
+
+List observable developments that change probability or value. For each, state the expected
+time window, source to check, and what outcome confirms or weakens the thesis. A catalyst needs a
+mechanism; “re-rating” alone is an outcome.
+
+Separate a catalyst from a falsifier. The latter is the evidence that should make the investor
+exit or revisit the work even if price has not cooperated.
+
+## Verdict
+
+Conclude **Long**, **Watch**, or **Pass** at the confidence supported by the research. Tie the
+verdict to valuation, the variant view, and the countercase. State unresolved work and the price
+or evidence that would change the decision.
+
+## Sources and calculation notes
+
+Provide an audit trail for material claims:
+
+- SEC form, filing date, accession, and item or section;
+- issuer, regulator, court, or industry document title and date;
+- external URL, publisher, publication date, and access date where relevant; and
+- calculation inputs, units, periods, and formulas.
+
+Do not dump every document opened. Include the sources on which the argument actually relies and
+preserve conflicting evidence.
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/scripts/dcf.py b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/scripts/dcf.py
index 16bc21e..c94537b 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/scripts/dcf.py
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/scripts/dcf.py
@@ -1,29 +1,26 @@
-"""Two-or-three-stage DCF — forward (assumptions -> intrinsic value) and reverse (price -> implied growth).
+"""Enterprise DCF for explicit FCFF assumptions.
 
-Part of the bottom-up-analyst skill's valuation tooling. The judgment — which lens to weight,
-how to set the inputs honestly — lives in ``references/guide_valuation.md``; this script just
-does the arithmetic the same way every time so memos are comparable. Output is a compact
-Markdown summary to stdout. Run ``--help`` for all flags.
+The model has three routes:
 
-Conventions: monetary inputs (``--fcf0``, ``--net-debt``) share one unit (e.g. $millions);
-``--shares`` is in the matching count unit (e.g. millions) so per-share output is in dollars.
-Rates (``--growth``, ``--terminal-growth``, ``--discount``) are percentages.
+``forward``
+    Grow a positive base FCFF at one or two explicit rates.
+``forecast``
+    Discount an explicit annual FCFF sequence. This route can represent an
+    initial loss and is preferable when margins or cash flow inflect.
+``reverse``
+    Solve for the first-stage FCFF growth rate implied by the share price.
 
-Two-stage model (default): FCF grows at ``--growth`` for ``--years``, then a Gordon terminal
-value captures perpetual growth at ``--terminal-growth``.
-
-Three-stage model (add ``--growth2`` and ``--years2``): FCF grows at ``--growth`` for
-``--years`` (stage 1), then at ``--growth2`` for ``--years2`` (stage 2), then a Gordon
-terminal value. Use it whenever the FCF trajectory has a structural bend — the near-term
-rate differs materially from the long-run rate. Examples: turnaround cost-out then
-normalized growth, hypergrowth investment phase then harvest, cyclical recovery then
-trend, regulatory deployment wave then steady-state.
-
-Enterprise value -> less net debt -> equity value -> per share.
+All cash flows are free cash flow to the firm (FCFF), so they are discounted at
+WACC to obtain enterprise value. Net claims are then subtracted to obtain equity
+value. Net claims equal debt and other senior claims less excess cash and other
+non-operating assets; use a negative number when additions exceed claims.
+Monetary inputs must use one common unit; shares must use the matching count
+unit. Rates are percentages.
 """
 
 import argparse
 import sys
+from collections.abc import Sequence
 
 if sys.platform.startswith("win"):
     try:
@@ -32,280 +29,411 @@
         pass
 
 
-def two_stage_value(fcf0, g1, years, g_term, disc):
-    """Return (enterprise_value, pv_stage1, pv_terminal) for a two-stage DCF."""
-    if disc <= g_term:
-        raise ValueError(
-            f"discount rate ({disc:.1%}) must exceed terminal growth ({g_term:.1%}); "
-            "the Gordon terminal value is undefined otherwise."
-        )
-    pv_stage1 = 0.0
-    fcf = fcf0
-    for t in range(1, years + 1):
-        fcf = fcf * (1 + g1)
-        pv_stage1 += fcf / (1 + disc) ** t
-    fcf_terminal = fcf * (1 + g_term)
-    tv = fcf_terminal / (disc - g_term)
-    pv_terminal = tv / (1 + disc) ** years
-    return pv_stage1 + pv_terminal, pv_stage1, pv_terminal
-
-
-def three_stage_value(fcf0, g1, years1, g2, years2, g_term, disc):
-    """Return (enterprise_value, pv_stage1, pv_stage2, pv_terminal) for a three-stage DCF.
-
-    Stage 1: FCF grows at g1 for years1 (acceleration / inflection).
-    Stage 2: FCF grows at g2 for years2 (normalized growth).
-    Terminal: Gordon perpetuity at g_term after both stages.
-    """
-    if disc <= g_term:
-        raise ValueError(
-            f"discount rate ({disc:.1%}) must exceed terminal growth ({g_term:.1%}); "
-            "the Gordon terminal value is undefined otherwise."
-        )
+def _percent_list(value: str) -> list[float]:
+    try:
+        values = [float(item.strip()) for item in value.split(",") if item.strip()]
+    except ValueError as exc:
+        raise argparse.ArgumentTypeError("expected comma-separated percentages") from exc
+    if not values:
+        raise argparse.ArgumentTypeError("provide at least one percentage")
+    return values
+
+
+def _number_list(value: str) -> list[float]:
+    try:
+        values = [float(item.strip()) for item in value.split(",") if item.strip()]
+    except ValueError as exc:
+        raise argparse.ArgumentTypeError("expected comma-separated numbers") from exc
+    if not values:
+        raise argparse.ArgumentTypeError("provide at least one cash flow")
+    return values
+
+
+def _validate_common(parser: argparse.ArgumentParser, args: argparse.Namespace) -> None:
+    if args.wacc <= 0:
+        parser.error("--wacc must be positive")
+    if args.terminal_growth <= -100:
+        parser.error("--terminal-growth must exceed -100%")
+    if args.wacc <= args.terminal_growth:
+        parser.error("--wacc must exceed --terminal-growth")
+    if args.shares <= 0:
+        parser.error("--shares must be positive")
+    if args.price is not None and args.price <= 0:
+        parser.error("--price must be positive")
+
+
+def _validate_growth(parser: argparse.ArgumentParser, values: Sequence[float], flag: str) -> None:
+    if any(value <= -100 for value in values):
+        parser.error(f"{flag} values must exceed -100%")
+
+
+def _terminal_value(fcff: float, terminal_growth: float, wacc: float) -> float:
+    next_year_fcff = fcff * (1 + terminal_growth)
+    return next_year_fcff / (wacc - terminal_growth)
+
+
+def growth_dcf(
+    fcff0: float,
+    growth1: float,
+    years1: int,
+    terminal_growth: float,
+    wacc: float,
+    growth2: float | None = None,
+    years2: int | None = None,
+) -> tuple[float, float, float, float]:
+    """Return enterprise value and PVs of stages 1, 2, and terminal value."""
+    fcff = fcff0
+    elapsed = 0
     pv_stage1 = 0.0
-    fcf = fcf0
-    total_years = 0
-    for _t in range(1, years1 + 1):
-        fcf = fcf * (1 + g1)
-        total_years += 1
-        pv_stage1 += fcf / (1 + disc) ** total_years
+    for _ in range(years1):
+        elapsed += 1
+        fcff *= 1 + growth1
+        pv_stage1 += fcff / (1 + wacc) ** elapsed
+
     pv_stage2 = 0.0
-    for _t in range(1, years2 + 1):
-        fcf = fcf * (1 + g2)
-        total_years += 1
-        pv_stage2 += fcf / (1 + disc) ** total_years
-    fcf_terminal = fcf * (1 + g_term)
-    tv = fcf_terminal / (disc - g_term)
-    pv_terminal = tv / (1 + disc) ** total_years
+    if growth2 is not None and years2 is not None:
+        for _ in range(years2):
+            elapsed += 1
+            fcff *= 1 + growth2
+            pv_stage2 += fcff / (1 + wacc) ** elapsed
+
+    pv_terminal = _terminal_value(fcff, terminal_growth, wacc) / (1 + wacc) ** elapsed
     return pv_stage1 + pv_stage2 + pv_terminal, pv_stage1, pv_stage2, pv_terminal
 
 
-def per_share(fcf0, g1, years, g_term, disc, net_debt, shares, g2=None, years2=None):
-    if g2 is not None and years2 is not None:
-        ev, _, _, _ = three_stage_value(fcf0, g1, years, g2, years2, g_term, disc)
-    else:
-        ev, _, _ = two_stage_value(fcf0, g1, years, g_term, disc)
-    equity = ev - net_debt
-    return equity / shares, ev, equity
+def forecast_dcf(
+    forecast: Sequence[float], terminal_growth: float, wacc: float
+) -> tuple[float, float, float]:
+    """Return enterprise value, PV of forecast FCFF, and PV of terminal value."""
+    pv_forecast = sum(fcff / (1 + wacc) ** year for year, fcff in enumerate(forecast, 1))
+    pv_terminal = _terminal_value(forecast[-1], terminal_growth, wacc) / (
+        (1 + wacc) ** len(forecast)
+    )
+    return pv_forecast + pv_terminal, pv_forecast, pv_terminal
 
 
-def solve_implied_growth(price, fcf0, years, g_term, disc, net_debt, shares):
-    """Bisect for the stage-1 growth rate (decimal) that makes IV/share == price."""
-    target = price
-    lo, hi = -0.95, 5.0
+def _equity_value(enterprise_value: float, net_claims: float, shares: float) -> tuple[float, float]:
+    equity_value = enterprise_value - net_claims
+    return equity_value, equity_value / shares
 
-    def f(g):
-        v, _, _ = per_share(fcf0, g, years, g_term, disc, net_debt, shares)
-        return v - target
 
-    flo, fhi = f(lo), f(hi)
-    if flo > 0:
+def _solve_implied_growth(
+    price: float,
+    fcff0: float,
+    years1: int,
+    terminal_growth: float,
+    wacc: float,
+    net_claims: float,
+    shares: float,
+    growth2: float | None,
+    years2: int | None,
+) -> tuple[float | None, str]:
+    def difference(growth1: float) -> float:
+        enterprise_value, _, _, _ = growth_dcf(
+            fcff0,
+            growth1,
+            years1,
+            terminal_growth,
+            wacc,
+            growth2,
+            years2,
+        )
+        _, value_per_share = _equity_value(enterprise_value, net_claims, shares)
+        return value_per_share - price
+
+    low, high = -0.99, 5.0
+    low_difference = difference(low)
+    high_difference = difference(high)
+    if low_difference > 0:
         return None, "below"
-    if fhi < 0:
+    if high_difference < 0:
         return None, "above"
+
     for _ in range(200):
-        mid = (lo + hi) / 2
-        fm = f(mid)
-        if abs(fm) < 1e-9:
-            return mid, "ok"
-        if (fm > 0) == (flo > 0):
-            lo, flo = mid, fm
+        midpoint = (low + high) / 2
+        midpoint_difference = difference(midpoint)
+        if abs(midpoint_difference) < 1e-9:
+            return midpoint, "ok"
+        if midpoint_difference > 0:
+            high = midpoint
         else:
-            hi = mid
-    return (lo + hi) / 2, "ok"
+            low = midpoint
+    return (low + high) / 2, "ok"
 
 
-def main():
-    p = argparse.ArgumentParser(
-        description=__doc__.splitlines()[0],
-        formatter_class=argparse.RawDescriptionHelpFormatter,
+def _add_common_arguments(parser: argparse.ArgumentParser, *, price_required: bool) -> None:
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--terminal-growth",
+        type=float,
+        required=True,
+        help="Perpetual FCFF growth after the explicit forecast, in percent.",
     )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--mode",
-        choices=["forward", "reverse"],
-        default="forward",
-        help="forward: assumptions -> IV/share. reverse: price -> implied growth.",
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--wacc",
+        type=float,
+        required=True,
+        help="Weighted average cost of capital, in percent.",
     )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--fcf0",
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--shares",
         type=float,
         required=True,
-        help="Base (normalized) free cash flow, in $M. Use owner earnings.",
+        help="Diluted shares; use the count unit matching the monetary inputs.",
     )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--growth",
-        type=str,
-        default="10",
-        help="Stage-1 growth %% (forward only). Comma-separated for sensitivity.",
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--net-claims",
+        type=float,
+        required=True,
+        help=(
+            "Debt and other senior claims minus excess cash and non-operating assets; "
+            "negative means net additions to enterprise value."
+        ),
     )
-    p.add_argument("--years", type=int, default=10, help="Stage-1 length in years (default 10).")
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--growth2",
-        type=str,
-        default=None,
-        help="Stage-2 growth %% (three-stage model). Comma-separated for sensitivity. "
-        "When set, --years/--growth is stage 1 and --years2/--growth2 is "
-        "stage 2, before the terminal value. Use whenever the near-term and "
-        "long-run FCF growth rates differ materially.",
+    price_help = (
+        "Current price per share; required to solve implied growth."
+        if price_required
+        else "Current price per share; optional comparison with modeled value."
     )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--years2",
-        type=int,
-        default=None,
-        help="Stage-2 length in years (three-stage model). Required with --growth2.",
+    parser.add_argument("--price", type=float, required=price_required, help=price_help)
+
+
+def _build_parser() -> argparse.ArgumentParser:
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description=__doc__.splitlines()[0])
+    subparsers = parser.add_subparsers(dest="command", required=True)
+
+    forward = subparsers.add_parser(
+        "forward", help="Value one- or two-stage growth in positive FCFF."
     )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--terminal-growth",
-        type=float,
-        default=2.5,
-        help="Perpetual growth %% after stage 1 (default 2.5; keep <= long-run GDP).",
+    forward.add_argument("--fcff0", type=float, required=True, help="Normalized base FCFF.")
+    forward.add_argument(
+        "--growth",
+        type=_percent_list,
+        required=True,
+        help="Stage-1 FCFF growth percentages; comma-separate sensitivity cases.",
     )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--discount", type=float, default=10.0, help="Discount rate / WACC %% (default 10)."
+    forward.add_argument("--years", type=int, required=True, help="Stage-1 years.")
+    forward.add_argument(
+        "--growth2",
+        type=_percent_list,
+        help="Optional stage-2 growth percentages; comma-separate sensitivity cases.",
     )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--shares",
-        type=float,
+    forward.add_argument("--years2", type=int, help="Stage-2 years; required with --growth2.")
+    _add_common_arguments(forward, price_required=False)
+
+    forecast = subparsers.add_parser(
+        "forecast", help="Value an explicit annual FCFF forecast, including initial losses."
+    )
+    forecast.add_argument(
+        "--fcff",
+        type=_number_list,
         required=True,
-        help="Diluted shares outstanding, same unit as --fcf0 (e.g. millions).",
+        help="FCFF for years 1..N, comma-separated. Use --fcff=-10,20 for a negative first year.",
     )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--net-debt",
-        type=float,
-        default=0.0,
-        help="Net debt in $M (total debt - cash & securities). Negative = net cash.",
+    _add_common_arguments(forecast, price_required=False)
+
+    reverse = subparsers.add_parser(
+        "reverse", help="Solve for the stage-1 FCFF growth implied by price."
     )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--price",
-        type=float,
-        default=None,
-        help="Current price/share. Required for --mode reverse; optional in forward "
-        "to print upside/downside.",
+    reverse.add_argument(
+        "--fcff0", type=float, required=True, help="Positive normalized base FCFF."
     )
-    args = p.parse_args()
-
-    g_term = args.terminal_growth / 100.0
-    disc = args.discount / 100.0
-    is_three_stage = args.growth2 is not None
-    if is_three_stage and args.years2 is None:
-        p.error("--years2 is required when --growth2 is set")
-
-    model_label = "three-stage" if is_three_stage else "two-stage"
-    print(f"# DCF ({args.mode}) -- {model_label}\n")
-    stage_info = f"Stage 1: {args.years}yr"
-    if is_three_stage:
-        stage_info += f"   Stage 2: {args.years2}yr"
-    print(
-        f"- Base FCF: {args.fcf0:,.0f}   {stage_info}   "
-        f"Terminal growth: {args.terminal_growth:.1f}%   Discount: {args.discount:.1f}%"
+    reverse.add_argument("--years", type=int, required=True, help="Stage-1 years.")
+    reverse.add_argument(
+        "--growth2",
+        type=float,
+        help="Optional fixed stage-2 growth percentage after the implied stage 1.",
     )
+    reverse.add_argument("--years2", type=int, help="Stage-2 years; required with --growth2.")
+    _add_common_arguments(reverse, price_required=True)
+    return parser
+
+
+def _print_header(args: argparse.Namespace, route: str, horizon: int) -> None:
+    print(f"# Enterprise DCF — {route}\n")
+    print(f"- Explicit horizon: {horizon} years")
+    print(f"- Terminal growth: {args.terminal_growth:.2f}%")
+    print(f"- WACC: {args.wacc:.2f}%")
+    print(f"- Diluted shares: {args.shares:,.2f}")
+    print(f"- Net claims: {args.net_claims:,.2f}")
+    if args.price is not None:
+        print(f"- Price: {args.price:,.2f}")
+    print()
+
+
+def _price_comparison(price: float | None, values: Sequence[float]) -> None:
+    if price is None:
+        return
+    low, high = min(values), max(values)
+    if high <= 0:
+        print("\nPrice comparison is not meaningful because modeled equity value is non-positive.")
+        return
+    if low <= 0:
+        high_discount = (1 - price / high) * 100
+        print(
+            "\nThe low modeled equity value is non-positive. "
+            f"Price discount/(premium) to the high value: {high_discount:+.1f}%."
+        )
+        return
+    low_discount = (1 - price / low) * 100
+    if abs(high - low) < 1e-12:
+        print(f"\nPrice discount/(premium) to modeled value: {low_discount:+.1f}%")
+        return
+    high_discount = (1 - price / high) * 100
     print(
-        f"- Shares: {args.shares:,.1f}   Net debt: {args.net_debt:,.0f}"
-        + (f"   Price: {args.price:,.2f}" if args.price is not None else "")
+        f"\nPrice discount/(premium) to modeled value: {low_discount:+.1f}% at the "
+        f"low value and {high_discount:+.1f}% at the high value."
     )
-    print()
 
-    if args.mode == "reverse":
-        if args.price is None:
-            p.error("--price is required for --mode reverse")
-        g, status = solve_implied_growth(
-            args.price, args.fcf0, args.years, g_term, disc, args.net_debt, args.shares
+
+def _run_forward(parser: argparse.ArgumentParser, args: argparse.Namespace) -> None:
+    if args.fcff0 <= 0:
+        parser.error("--fcff0 must be positive; use the forecast route for initial losses")
+    if args.years <= 0:
+        parser.error("--years must be positive")
+    if (args.growth2 is None) != (args.years2 is None):
+        parser.error("--growth2 and --years2 must be supplied together")
+    if args.years2 is not None and args.years2 <= 0:
+        parser.error("--years2 must be positive")
+    _validate_growth(parser, args.growth, "--growth")
+    if args.growth2 is not None:
+        _validate_growth(parser, args.growth2, "--growth2")
+
+    horizon = args.years + (args.years2 or 0)
+    _print_header(args, "forward growth sensitivity", horizon)
+    terminal_growth = args.terminal_growth / 100
+    wacc = args.wacc / 100
+    values: list[float] = []
+    terminal_shares: list[float] = []
+
+    if args.growth2 is None:
+        print(
+            "| Stage-1 growth | Enterprise value | Equity value | Value/share | Terminal % of EV |"
         )
-        if status == "above":
-            print(
-                "**The current price implies growth above 500%/yr for the whole stage** -- "
-                "i.e. the price cannot be justified by this model on these cash flows."
+        print("| :-- | --: | --: | --: | --: |")
+        for growth in args.growth:
+            enterprise_value, _, _, pv_terminal = growth_dcf(
+                args.fcff0, growth / 100, args.years, terminal_growth, wacc
             )
-        elif status == "below":
-            print(
-                "**The current price implies a steep perpetual *decline*** -- the market is "
-                "pricing the cash flows away."
+            equity_value, value_per_share = _equity_value(
+                enterprise_value, args.net_claims, args.shares
             )
-        else:
-            print(f"## Implied stage-1 growth: **{g * 100:.1f}% / yr** for {args.years} years\n")
+            values.append(value_per_share)
+            terminal_share = pv_terminal / enterprise_value * 100
+            terminal_shares.append(terminal_share)
             print(
-                "That is the growth the current price already bakes in. The thesis question: "
-                "is that bar too high, about right, or too low versus what this business has "
-                "done and can do?"
+                f"| {growth:.2f}% | {enterprise_value:,.2f} | {equity_value:,.2f} | "
+                f"{value_per_share:,.2f} | {terminal_share:.1f}% |"
             )
-        return
-
-    # forward
-    growths = [float(x) for x in args.growth.split(",") if x.strip() != ""]
-    growths2 = (
-        [float(x) for x in args.growth2.split(",") if x.strip() != ""] if is_three_stage else [None]
-    )
-
-    if is_three_stage:
-        print("## Intrinsic value per share (stage-1 growth x stage-2 growth)")
-        print()
-        header = "| S1 \\\\ S2 |"
-        for g2 in growths2:
-            header += f" {g2:.0f}% |"
-        print(header)
-        sep = "| :-- |" + " --: |" * len(growths2)
-        print(sep)
-        ivs = []
-        for g1 in growths:
-            row = f"| {g1:.0f}% |"
-            for g2 in growths2:
-                try:
-                    iv, ev, eq = per_share(
-                        args.fcf0,
-                        g1 / 100.0,
-                        args.years,
-                        g_term,
-                        disc,
-                        args.net_debt,
-                        args.shares,
-                        g2=g2 / 100.0,
-                        years2=args.years2,
-                    )
-                except ValueError as exc:
-                    p.error(str(exc))
-                ivs.append(iv)
-                if args.price is not None:
-                    upside = (iv / args.price - 1) * 100
-                    row += f" {iv:,.2f} ({upside:+.0f}%) |"
-                else:
-                    row += f" {iv:,.2f} |"
-            print(row)
     else:
-        print("## Intrinsic value per share")
-        print()
-        header = "| Stage-1 growth | IV / share | Enterprise value | Equity value |"
-        if args.price is not None:
-            header += " Upside vs price |"
-        print(header)
-        sep = "| :-- | --: | --: | --: |" + (" --: |" if args.price is not None else "")
-        print(sep)
-        ivs = []
-        for g in growths:
-            try:
-                iv, ev, eq = per_share(
-                    args.fcf0, g / 100.0, args.years, g_term, disc, args.net_debt, args.shares
+        print("| Stage 1 \\ Stage 2 | " + " | ".join(f"{g:.2f}%" for g in args.growth2) + " |")
+        print("| :-- | " + " | ".join("--:" for _ in args.growth2) + " |")
+        for growth1 in args.growth:
+            row = [f"{growth1:.2f}%"]
+            for growth2 in args.growth2:
+                enterprise_value, _, _, pv_terminal = growth_dcf(
+                    args.fcff0,
+                    growth1 / 100,
+                    args.years,
+                    terminal_growth,
+                    wacc,
+                    growth2 / 100,
+                    args.years2,
                 )
-            except ValueError as exc:
-                p.error(str(exc))
-            ivs.append(iv)
-            row = f"| {g:.1f}% | {iv:,.2f} | {ev:,.0f} | {eq:,.0f} |"
-            if args.price is not None:
-                row += f" {(iv / args.price - 1) * 100:+.1f}% |"
-            print(row)
+                _, value_per_share = _equity_value(enterprise_value, args.net_claims, args.shares)
+                values.append(value_per_share)
+                terminal_shares.append(pv_terminal / enterprise_value * 100)
+                row.append(f"{value_per_share:,.2f}")
+            print("| " + " | ".join(row) + " |")
+        print("\nValues in the matrix are equity value per diluted share.")
 
-    print()
-    if len(ivs) > 1:
+    print(f"\nModeled value/share range: **{min(values):,.2f} to {max(values):,.2f}**")
+    if len(terminal_shares) > 1:
         print(
-            f"**Intrinsic-value range: {min(ivs):,.2f} -- {max(ivs):,.2f} / share** "
-            "(bear--bull across the growth cases above)."
+            f"Terminal value share of enterprise value: {min(terminal_shares):.1f}% "
+            f"to {max(terminal_shares):.1f}%"
         )
-    if args.price is not None:
-        _lo, hi = min(ivs), max(ivs)
-        mos = (1 - args.price / hi) * 100 if hi > 0 else float("nan")
+    _price_comparison(args.price, values)
+
+
+def _run_forecast(parser: argparse.ArgumentParser, args: argparse.Namespace) -> None:
+    if args.fcff[-1] <= 0:
+        parser.error("the final explicit FCFF must be positive for a Gordon terminal value")
+    _print_header(args, "explicit forecast", len(args.fcff))
+    terminal_growth = args.terminal_growth / 100
+    wacc = args.wacc / 100
+    enterprise_value, pv_forecast, pv_terminal = forecast_dcf(args.fcff, terminal_growth, wacc)
+    equity_value, value_per_share = _equity_value(enterprise_value, args.net_claims, args.shares)
+
+    print("| Year | FCFF | Present value |")
+    print("| --: | --: | --: |")
+    for year, fcff in enumerate(args.fcff, 1):
+        print(f"| {year} | {fcff:,.2f} | {fcff / (1 + wacc) ** year:,.2f} |")
+    print(f"\n- PV of explicit FCFF: {pv_forecast:,.2f}")
+    terminal_share = f"{pv_terminal / enterprise_value:.1%}" if enterprise_value > 0 else "n/m"
+    print(f"- PV of terminal value: {pv_terminal:,.2f} ({terminal_share} of EV)")
+    print(f"- Enterprise value: {enterprise_value:,.2f}")
+    print(f"- Equity value: {equity_value:,.2f}")
+    print(f"- Value per diluted share: **{value_per_share:,.2f}**")
+    _price_comparison(args.price, [value_per_share])
+
+
+def _run_reverse(parser: argparse.ArgumentParser, args: argparse.Namespace) -> None:
+    if args.fcff0 <= 0:
+        parser.error("--fcff0 must be positive for reverse growth DCF")
+    if args.years <= 0:
+        parser.error("--years must be positive")
+    if (args.growth2 is None) != (args.years2 is None):
+        parser.error("--growth2 and --years2 must be supplied together")
+    if args.years2 is not None and args.years2 <= 0:
+        parser.error("--years2 must be positive")
+    if args.growth2 is not None:
+        _validate_growth(parser, [args.growth2], "--growth2")
+
+    horizon = args.years + (args.years2 or 0)
+    _print_header(args, "reverse growth", horizon)
+    implied_enterprise_value = args.price * args.shares + args.net_claims
+    if implied_enterprise_value <= 0:
         print(
-            f"\nAt {args.price:,.2f}: margin of safety to the high case is {mos:.0f}%. "
-            "Require the thesis to survive the *low* end before you trust it."
+            "Price implies non-positive operating enterprise value after the stated "
+            "net claims; no positive-FCFF growth rate can reconcile this model."
         )
+        return
+    growth, status = _solve_implied_growth(
+        args.price,
+        args.fcff0,
+        args.years,
+        args.terminal_growth / 100,
+        args.wacc / 100,
+        args.net_claims,
+        args.shares,
+        args.growth2 / 100 if args.growth2 is not None else None,
+        args.years2,
+    )
+    if status == "below":
+        print("The implied stage-1 growth is below -99% per year, outside the search range.")
+    elif status == "above":
+        print("The implied stage-1 growth exceeds 500% per year, outside the search range.")
+    else:
+        print(f"Implied stage-1 FCFF growth: **{growth * 100:.2f}% per year**")
+        print(f"Stage-1 duration: {args.years} years")
+        if args.growth2 is not None:
+            print(f"Fixed stage 2: {args.growth2:.2f}% for {args.years2} years")
+    print(
+        "\nThe implied rate is conditional on the stated base FCFF, horizon, terminal growth, "
+        "WACC, net claims, and share count."
+    )
+
+
+def main() -> None:
+    parser = _build_parser()
+    args = parser.parse_args()
+    _validate_common(parser, args)
+    if args.command == "forward":
+        _run_forward(parser, args)
+    elif args.command == "forecast":
+        _run_forecast(parser, args)
+    else:
+        _run_reverse(parser, args)
 
 
 if __name__ == "__main__":
diff --git a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/scripts/epv.py b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/scripts/epv.py
index 29ba6bb..43172f3 100644
--- a/skills/bottom-up-analyst/scripts/epv.py
+++ b/skills/bottom-up-analyst/scripts/epv.py
@@ -1,114 +1,130 @@
-"""Earnings Power Value (EPV) — the no-growth floor.
-
-Part of the bottom-up-analyst skill's valuation tooling. EPV capitalizes *current normalized*
-operating earnings with **zero growth credit**: what is the business worth if it simply earns
-what it earns today, forever? It is the conservative anchor in a triangulation — pair it with
-``dcf.py`` (which prices in growth) and read the gap between them as "how much of the price is
-growth I have to believe in." The reasoning behind the inputs is in
-``references/guide_valuation.md``.
-
-Conventions: monetary inputs (``--ebit``, ``--net-debt``, ``--maint-capex``, ``--da``) share one
-unit (e.g. $millions); ``--shares`` matches (e.g. millions) so per-share output is in dollars.
-``--tax`` and ``--wacc`` are percentages.
-
-EPV (enterprise) = normalized NOPAT / WACC, where NOPAT = adjusted EBIT x (1 - tax).
-With the optional Greenwald refinement (``--da`` and ``--maint-capex``), adjusted EBIT adds back
-the portion of depreciation that exceeds true maintenance capex — earnings the accounting hides.
-"""
-
-import argparse
-import sys
-
-if sys.platform.startswith("win"):
-    try:
-        sys.stdout.reconfigure(encoding="utf-8")
-    except Exception:
-        pass
-
-
-def main():
-    p = argparse.ArgumentParser(
-        description=__doc__.splitlines()[0],
-        formatter_class=argparse.RawDescriptionHelpFormatter,
-    )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--ebit",
-        type=float,
-        required=True,
-        help="Normalized operating earnings (EBIT) in $M. For cyclicals use "
-        "mid-cycle EBIT, not the latest year.",
-    )
-    p.add_argument("--tax", type=float, default=21.0, help="Cash tax rate %% (default 21).")
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--wacc", type=float, required=True, help="Cost of capital %% used to capitalize earnings."
-    )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--shares",
-        type=float,
-        required=True,
-        help="Diluted shares, same unit as --ebit (e.g. millions).",
-    )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--net-debt", type=float, default=0.0, help="Net debt in $M (negative = net cash)."
-    )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--da",
-        type=float,
-        default=None,
-        help="Depreciation & amortization in $M (optional, for the maintenance-capex "
-        "refinement; use with --maint-capex).",
-    )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--maint-capex",
-        type=float,
-        default=None,
-        help="Maintenance capex in $M (optional). If D&A exceeds it, the excess is "
-        "added back to EBIT as hidden earning power.",
-    )
-    p.add_argument(
-        "--price",
-        type=float,
-        default=None,
-        help="Current price/share (optional) to print EPV vs price.",
-    )
-    args = p.parse_args()
-
-    if args.wacc <= 0:
-        p.error("--wacc must be positive")
-
-    tax = args.tax / 100.0
-    wacc = args.wacc / 100.0
-
-    adj_ebit = args.ebit
-    note = ""
-    if args.da is not None and args.maint_capex is not None:
-        excess = args.da - args.maint_capex
-        adj_ebit = args.ebit + excess
-        note = (
-            f" (adjusted from {args.ebit:,.0f} by D&A {args.da:,.0f} − maint capex "
-            f"{args.maint_capex:,.0f} = {excess:+,.0f})"
-        )
-
-    nopat = adj_ebit * (1 - tax)
-    epv_enterprise = nopat / wacc
-    epv_equity = epv_enterprise - args.net_debt
-    epv_share = epv_equity / args.shares
-
-    print("# Earnings Power Value — no-growth floor\n")
-    print(f"- Adjusted EBIT: {adj_ebit:,.0f}{note}")
-    print(f"- NOPAT (after {args.tax:.0f}% tax): {nopat:,.0f}")
-    print(f"- Capitalized at WACC {args.wacc:.1f}%  ->  EPV enterprise: {epv_enterprise:,.0f}")
-    print(f"- Less net debt {args.net_debt:,.0f}  ->  EPV equity: {epv_equity:,.0f}")
-    print(f"\n## EPV / share (no growth): **{epv_share:,.2f}**")
-    if args.price is not None:
-        gap = (args.price / epv_share - 1) * 100 if epv_share > 0 else float("nan")
-        print(
-            f"\nAt {args.price:,.2f}/share, the market pays **{gap:+.0f}%** versus the "
-            "no-growth value. That premium is what you are paying for growth and "
-            "improvement — decide whether the business can deliver it. A price *below* EPV "
-            "means the market assigns the growth (and maybe some of the base) negative value."
-        )
-
-
-if __name__ == "__main__":
-    main()
+"""Earnings Power Value for normalized no-growth operating earnings.
+
+EPV capitalizes normalized after-tax operating cash earnings at WACC. It is a
+no-growth lens, not a guaranteed floor. Monetary inputs use one common unit;
+shares use the matching count unit. Rates are percentages.
+
+Without the optional maintenance-capex refinement, the model assumes D&A and
+maintenance capex offset:
+
+    operating earnings = normalized EBIT * (1 - cash tax rate)
+
+With both ``--da`` and ``--maint-capex``:
+
+    operating cash earnings = EBIT * (1 - tax) + D&A - maintenance capex
+
+The latter preserves the depreciation tax shield and does not tax the capex
+adjustment a second time.
+"""
+
+import argparse
+import sys
+
+if sys.platform.startswith("win"):
+    try:
+        sys.stdout.reconfigure(encoding="utf-8")
+    except Exception:
+        pass
+
+
+def _build_parser() -> argparse.ArgumentParser:
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description=__doc__.splitlines()[0])
+    parser.add_argument("--ebit", type=float, required=True, help="Normalized operating EBIT.")
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--tax", type=float, required=True, help="Normalized cash tax rate, in percent."
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--wacc", type=float, required=True, help="Weighted average cost of capital, in percent."
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--shares",
+        type=float,
+        required=True,
+        help="Diluted shares; use the count unit matching the monetary inputs.",
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--net-claims",
+        type=float,
+        required=True,
+        help=(
+            "Debt and other senior claims minus excess cash and non-operating assets; "
+            "negative means net additions to enterprise value."
+        ),
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--da",
+        type=float,
+        help="Normalized depreciation and amortization; use with --maint-capex.",
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--maint-capex",
+        type=float,
+        help="Estimated maintenance capex; use with --da.",
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--price", type=float, help="Current price per share, to compare price with EPV."
+    )
+    return parser
+
+
+def _validate(parser: argparse.ArgumentParser, args: argparse.Namespace) -> None:
+    if not 0 <= args.tax < 100:
+        parser.error("--tax must be at least 0% and below 100%")
+    if args.wacc <= 0:
+        parser.error("--wacc must be positive")
+    if args.shares <= 0:
+        parser.error("--shares must be positive")
+    if args.price is not None and args.price <= 0:
+        parser.error("--price must be positive")
+    if (args.da is None) != (args.maint_capex is None):
+        parser.error("--da and --maint-capex must be supplied together")
+    if args.da is not None and (args.da < 0 or args.maint_capex < 0):
+        parser.error("--da and --maint-capex cannot be negative")
+
+
+def main() -> None:
+    parser = _build_parser()
+    args = parser.parse_args()
+    _validate(parser, args)
+
+    tax_rate = args.tax / 100
+    wacc = args.wacc / 100
+    after_tax_ebit = args.ebit * (1 - tax_rate)
+    operating_earnings = after_tax_ebit
+    if args.da is not None:
+        operating_earnings += args.da - args.maint_capex
+    if operating_earnings <= 0:
+        parser.error(
+            "normalized after-tax operating earnings must be positive; "
+            "a perpetuity cannot capitalize a non-positive base"
+        )
+
+    enterprise_value = operating_earnings / wacc
+    equity_value = enterprise_value - args.net_claims
+    value_per_share = equity_value / args.shares
+
+    print("# Earnings Power Value — no-growth operating case\n")
+    print(f"- Normalized EBIT: {args.ebit:,.2f}")
+    print(f"- After-tax EBIT at {args.tax:.2f}%: {after_tax_ebit:,.2f}")
+    if args.da is not None:
+        print(f"- Add D&A: {args.da:,.2f}")
+        print(f"- Less maintenance capex: {args.maint_capex:,.2f}")
+    print(f"- Capitalized operating earnings: {operating_earnings:,.2f}")
+    print(f"- WACC: {args.wacc:.2f}%")
+    print(f"- Enterprise value: {enterprise_value:,.2f}")
+    print(f"- Net claims: {args.net_claims:,.2f}")
+    print(f"- Equity value: {equity_value:,.2f}")
+    print(f"- EPV per diluted share: **{value_per_share:,.2f}**")
+
+    if args.price is not None:
+        if value_per_share <= 0:
+            print(
+                "\nPrice comparison is not meaningful because modeled equity value is non-positive."
+            )
+        else:
+            discount = (1 - args.price / value_per_share) * 100
+            print(f"\nPrice discount/(premium) to EPV: {discount:+.1f}%")
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    main()