31 July 2026 Screener
Universe: 715 US large-caps (cached list, 4 days old, reused per the 7-day rule) + NOK/ERIC (Non-US watchlist) − 9 Exclude-list names = 716 candidates screened live.
Macro backdrop (live scan): Fed held rates at 3.50–3.75%, a divided vote with dissents favoring a hike (not a cut) on persistent above-target inflation; Q2 GDP growth slowed to 1.5% with one read putting inflation at 5.1%; July jobs report due Aug 7. US/Iran strikes paused over the weekend, oil pulled back over 6% off that pause. Notably choppier, more AI-stock-skeptical tape than recent prior runs — Meta sold off hard this week and a prominent AI-focused hedge fund reported a 67% July drawdown letter to investors. This backdrop is the most plausible explanation for a smaller survivor pool and a higher disqualification rate than the prior run.
Funnel: 716 → 81 quantitative survivors (well below the typical 150–250 range, and well below the prior run’s 131) → full six-part diligence on all 81 → single consolidated scoring pass → 12 of 81 (14.8%) hard-disqualified, 7 of 81 (8.6%) scored 7/10+ — comfortably under the 20-25% calibration-flag threshold, no loosening needed.
Presented ideas (2+ appearances, fresh evidence — the only names actionable per the presentation gate)
BR — Broadridge Financial Solutions
$153.97 (FMP, 2026-07-31) vs $151.69 (WebSearch, appears to be a stale 07-30 snapshot) · 43.4% off 52wk high ($271.91) · mkt cap $17.8B
Financial analysis: consistent multi-year FCF growth, strong balance-sheet quality.
Valuation corroboration (3/3): DCF (+40% implied), analyst consensus (+37%), and grades showing zero sell ratings all agree.
Moat: proxy/regulatory-services processing scale with high switching costs for issuers and broker-dealers.
News/political: nothing newly adverse this run.
Insider/congressional: checked fresh — no genuine open-market buying found this run; nothing material on the sell side either.
Catalyst (confirmed): Distributed Ledger Repo volumes +68% YoY, a signed Raiffeisen platform win, and executed tokenization partnerships — all already-reported facts, not scheduled events.
Biggest fact against the thesis / value-trap read: organic growth outside the DLR/tokenization segment remains soft — the re-rating case leans heavily on one growth engine. Read: temporarily wrong on price given genuine, already-realized platform wins, not a broken business.
Score: core 7.5 (3/3 valuation corroboration + confirmed catalyst) → no legal/political deduction → +0 boost (no genuine insider buying found) → 7.5/10
Label: High-conviction, actionable (3rd appearance, fresh evidence — promoted back from Watchlist after 2 stale runs)
Trigger framing: a second quarter of DLR-segment growth alongside stabilizing organic revenue would resolve the concentration concern.
DKNG — DraftKings
$23.44 (FMP, 2026-07-31) vs $23.72 (WebSearch, 2026-07-31) · 52.0% off 52wk high ($48.78) · mkt cap $11.6B
Financial analysis: FY2025 was the company’s first full profitable year, FCF $647.5M — a real, already-reported inflection, not a projection.
Valuation corroboration: DCF (cautioned/wide range) + a heavily bullish analyst consensus (+51% implied) both point the same direction.
Moat: DraftKings/FanDuel duopoly structure in regulated US online sports betting.
News/political: prediction-market disintermediation (Kalshi/Polymarket, unregulated CFTC-supervised venues) remains the live competitive/regulatory threat across the sector.
Insider/congressional: checked fresh — no genuine open-market executive buying found; notable confirmed Michael Burry 13F long addition this quarter (not an insider, but a real disclosed institutional signal).
Catalyst (confirmed): FY2025 full-year results (first profitable year) are an already-filed fact.
Biggest fact against the thesis / value-trap read: the prediction-market threat to the core sportsbook moat is real and unresolved industry-wide — DraftKings is not immune just because it just turned profitable. Read: temporarily wrong on price given a genuine, already-realized profitability inflection, but the structural threat bears continued watching.
Score: core 7.0 (DCF + bullish consensus corroborate, confirmed profitability catalyst) → no legal/political deduction → +0.5 boost (bullish consensus + confirmed Burry addition, capped) → 7.5/10
Label: High-conviction, actionable (2nd appearance, fresh evidence — promoted from Watchlist)
Trigger framing: the Aug 6, 2026 earnings report is the next confirm/deny event for whether the profitability inflection is durable.
CRM — Salesforce
$183.46 (FMP, 2026-07-31) vs $188.46 (WebSearch, appears to be a stale 07-29 snapshot) · 31.8% off 52wk high ($269.11) · mkt cap $150.3B
Financial analysis: excellent quality — FCF $14.4B, strong balance sheet.
Valuation corroboration (3/3): DCF (+34%), analyst consensus (+47%), and a near-unanimous 97-analyst Buy skew all agree.
Moat: enterprise CRM platform lock-in, high switching costs.
News/political: nothing newly adverse this run.
Insider/congressional: checked fresh — no genuine open-market insider buying found this run.
Catalyst (confirmed): the signed $1.6B VA federal Agentforce contract remains on file as an already-executed fact.
Biggest fact against the thesis / value-trap read: AI-native SaaS disruption remains a real, unresolved industry risk, and ServiceNow’s organic growth continues to outpace Salesforce’s even as CRM’s multiple compresses toward NOW’s. Read: temporarily wrong on price given a real signed contract and strong fundamentals, but the competitive-positioning question is not fully resolved.
Score: core 7.5 (3/3 valuation corroboration + confirmed catalyst + excellent quality) → no legal/political deduction → +0.3 boost (overwhelmingly bullish consensus) → 7.5/10
Label: High-conviction, actionable (5th appearance, fresh evidence)
Trigger framing: continued Agentforce contract wins at this scale would further validate the AI-competitive-positioning case.
LDOS — Leidos Holdings
$113.81 (FMP, 2026-07-31) vs $100.64 (WebSearch, appears to be a stale/mismatched snapshot) · 44.7% off 52wk high ($205.77) · mkt cap $14.3B
Financial analysis: ROE ~30%, growing FCF ($1.625B).
Valuation corroboration: analyst consensus (+47%) + the stock’s own steep 44-46% drawdown from its own history both corroborate; DCF output was unusable/artifact this run (excluded, not treated as a disagreement).
Moat: cleared-government-IT/defense-services oligopoly structure.
News/political: nothing newly adverse this run.
Insider/congressional: checked fresh — no genuine open-market insider buying found.
Catalyst (confirmed): a signed $717M USAF task order, a launched Parcata AI platform, and an executed CoreWeave defense-cloud partnership — all already-happened facts, and a meaningfully stronger/fresher set than the “several small contract wins” that kept this name capped below 7 for four straight runs.
Biggest fact against the thesis / value-trap read: single-sourced valuation corroboration capped this name for four consecutive runs — today is the first time a genuinely fresh, concrete catalyst set closed that gap. Read: temporarily wrong on price, now with real evidence the gap is closing rather than a promise that it will.
Score: core 7.0 (valuation corroboration + confirmed, strengthened catalyst set) → no legal/political deduction → +0 boost (no genuine insider buying) → 7.0/10
Label: High-conviction, actionable (2nd appearance, fresh evidence — promoted from Watchlist)
Trigger framing: additional contract awards at a similar scale in the next quarter would further confirm the catalyst is a genuine trend, not a one-off.
TYL — Tyler Technologies
$310.26 (FMP, 2026-07-31) vs ~$316-318 (WebSearch, conflicting/likely-stale reads) · 50.1% off 52wk high ($621.34) · mkt cap $13.1B
Financial analysis: solid quality profile, government-software niche.
Valuation corroboration (3/3): DCF (+31%), analyst consensus (+40%), and the stock’s own 50% drawdown all agree.
Moat: entrenched state/local-government software platform, high switching costs.
News/political: nothing newly adverse this run.
Insider/congressional: checked fresh — no genuine open-market insider selling or buying signal beyond a bullish consensus with no sell ratings.
Catalyst (confirmed): a Q2 beat, a newly authorized $1.5B buyback, and a closed CODY acquisition — all already-happened facts.
Biggest fact against the thesis / value-trap read: the market’s own reaction to the beat was negative (stock fell on the print) — this is not yet a clean re-rating despite the fundamentals improving. Read: temporarily wrong on price, but sentiment hasn’t caught up to the confirmed facts yet.
Score: core 7.0 (3/3 valuation corroboration + confirmed catalyst set) → no legal/political deduction → +0.3 boost (bullish consensus, no sell ratings) → 7.0/10
Label: High-conviction, actionable (3rd appearance, fresh evidence)
Trigger framing: a positive market reaction to the next print, rather than the negative one seen this quarter, would be the clearest sentiment-catch-up signal.
First-appearance 7/10+ names (logged only, not presented per the presentation gate)
HOOD (Robinhood) — 7.0/10. Analyst target, a fresh Bernstein re-rate, and the stock’s own 43% drawdown corroborate; Q2 records show prediction-market revenue overtaking crypto revenue for the first time (confirmed). Logged to the Active log as “Watchlist — single-run 7/10+, awaiting repetition.”
MRVL (Marvell Technology) — 7.0/10. Analyst target + 42-44% drawdown corroborate; FY2026’s return to GAAP profitability ($2.67B net income) is an already-filed inflection. Logged the same way.
Sub-7/10 names that cleared quantitative/qualitative gates but fell short (Watchlist, brief)
BSX (6.7 — WATCHMAN/EP softness, no fresh positive catalyst), ROP (6.5 — thin analyst upside, DCF not credible), GWRE (6.5 — valuation still single-sourced after 5 runs), ISRG (6.5 — procedure-growth deceleration concern persists), NFLX (6.5 — no confirmed positive catalyst found again), NOW (6.5 — single-sourced valuation this run), INTU (5.5 — active fraud suit still weighing), FIS (5.0 — weak Altman-Z weighted more heavily), GLW (5.0 — executive-wide selling cluster), ORCL (4.5, FICO 4.5, AMKR 4.5, GFS 4.5, KMB 3.5, NXT 4.5 — various single-sourced/contradicted valuation reads), OWL (4.9 — sector private-credit stress read-through), CSGP (4.0 — near-zero FCF yield), FI/formerly FISV (3.0 — real reported deterioration), ZS (3.0 — active unresolved fraud investigation + zero insider buying since crash — the combination the rubric explicitly flags), ZTS (2.8 — active litigation tied to a real, dateable product-quality issue), GDDY (2.5 — active fraud investigation + broad insider selling). Full list and arithmetic for all 69 scored names is in the working-folder file consolidated_scores.md.
Hard disqualifiers this run (12 of 81)
APP, CBRS — sustained, multi-release securities-fraud campaigns coincident with insider position liquidation. CHTR — unbroken subscriber/revenue decline funded by debt-financed buybacks, no evidenced stabilization. CRWV — FCF deficit funded almost entirely by new debt (net debt/EBITDA 10.5x, Altman-Z in distress territory) plus concurrent heavy insider selling. ECHO / SATS — both trace to the same underlying EchoStar/Dish DBS facts: missing financials and a subsidiary Chapter 11 filing. FLUT — distress-zone Altman-Z, a debt-funded acquisition that spiked leverage, and an unresolved competitive threat (regulated prediction markets) to the core sportsbook moat. GIS — first GAAP loss in 5 years with management’s own guidance confirming further deterioration. PODD, RBLX — expanding multi-firm fraud litigation combined with a live, negative business-model shock. SMMT — pre-revenue biotech burning cash with no funded profitability path. STRK — crypto-treasury/bitcoin-proxy preferred security, standing exclusion rule.
None of these are suggested as Exclude-list additions beyond STRK, which already falls under the standing crypto-exposure category rule (no explicit action needed — the rule already covers it).
This is a research/screening output only, not a trade instruction. Conviction scores reflect a structured process, not a guarantee — please treat all of the above as inputs to your own decision-making, not as investment advice.