Fact Check — Verify the Numbers, Cite the Sources

⚠️ Data Verification — Do This Before Any Analysis

Before verifying anything, establish what data each claim actually needs:

1. Fetch current price only where a claim needs it — market claims (price, market cap, yield, multiples “today”) are checked against a live quote for the report’s as-of date and today’s; use web search or ask the user. Reported figures, historical comparisons, and --recompute runs need no live quote — do not request one, and do not let its absence block them. Never assume a price from training data.
2. Confirm key figures — for this skill the “key figures” are the sources themselves: the filing (10-K / 10-Q / 8-K / proxy / Form 4 / 13F), the IR release, the FRED series, the exchange or issuer data, or the document the user pasted. Retrieve or request them before judging a single claim. A claim checked against memory is not checked.
3. State your data source — fill in the Data & Sources header (next section) so the origin, as-of date, retrieval path, and confidence of every figure are explicit at the top of the output.
4. Flag stale data explicitly — if a live quote is needed for a market claim and unavailable, display this warning before proceeding, and mark those claims ❓ or 🕒 rather than guessing:

⚠️ Live data unavailable. The following analysis uses training-data estimates which may be significantly out of date. Verify all prices and metrics before making any decisions.

The warning describes the inputs actually used: when every claim was checked against user-supplied documents, say so instead of implying training-data estimates were involved. Never silently substitute training-data estimates for current prices. When in doubt, ask the user to paste the latest quote.

📋 Data & Sources Header — Open Every Output With It

The first thing in the output is this provenance block, filled in — never left as placeholders. It is the standard documented on the Data & Accuracy page and the first thing result-validator looks for:

Data & Sources
  As of:      <date the figures represent, e.g. 2026-06-30>
  Source:     <primary docs — SEC EDGAR 10-K/10-Q, company IR, FRED, exchange data …>
  Retrieval:  <pasted by user | web/tool retrieval | model memory>
  Confidence: <HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW>

• Retrieval: model memory must be paired with Confidence: LOW — memory is a placeholder until confirmed against a primary source.
• Mixed sources: list each with its own as-of date rather than blending them.
• Data the user pasted is reported as pasted by user; do not upgrade its confidence beyond what the user’s own source supports.

For this skill the header describes the sources used to verify, not the report being verified — the report’s own header is quoted and judged in Phase 5.

Overview

Every InvestSkill analysis opens with a Data & Sources header, and result-validator scores whether sources are “cited or identifiable”. Neither answers the question a careful reader actually has: is this specific number true, and where exactly does it come from? A report can carry an honest header, a tidy methodology, and a consistent signal — and still be built on a revenue figure from the wrong fiscal year, a margin computed on non-GAAP earnings, or a share count that was stale when the model wrote it.

This skill closes that gap at the level of the individual claim. It takes any report — an InvestSkill output, a broker note, a spreadsheet, a paragraph from a forum post — pulls out every figure and factual assertion, checks each one against a primary source, recomputes every derived number from verified inputs, and hands back three things: a claim ledger with a verdict per claim (✅ verified · ⚠️ mismatch · ❓ unverifiable · 🔁 recomputed · 🕒 stale), a corrected copy of the report with inline citations and a References section, and a Verification Score 0–10 that result-validator can consume as the evidence behind its Data Quality dimension.

Division of labour. result-validator asks is this analysis well built? (methodology, consistency, risk coverage, transparency). fact-check asks are the inputs true? Run this one first when the stakes are real; the validator’s score means little if the numbers underneath it are wrong. learning-coach then explains the result to a beginner.

What it is not. It does not re-run the analysis, form its own view on the stock, or change the report’s signal. It never invents a source to make a claim look verified: an unverifiable claim stays ❓, and a claim that cannot be traced is more honestly left uncited than given a plausible-looking reference. Fabricating a citation is the one failure mode that makes this skill worse than useless — it is a hard-cap-to-zero offence in the score.

1. Modes

If a source cannot be retrieved in the environment, the skill says which claims that blocks and asks the user to paste the document — it never fills the gap from memory.

2. Inputs

3. Framework

Phase 1 — Extract every claim into a ledger

Read the report once and list every checkable statement — not just the headline numbers. One row per claim:

Claim types decide which source can verify them: reported (a figure stated in a filing or release), derived (computed from reported figures — must be recomputed, not just matched), market (price, market cap, yield — needs an as-of date), estimate (consensus, guidance — needs the source and date of the estimate), macro (rates, CPI — FRED / BLS series and vintage), fact (an event: a filing, a transaction, an appointment), qualitative (a characterization — “dominant”, “improving” — checked for whether the cited evidence supports it, never marked verified on its own).

Mark the signal-driving claims. They carry more weight in the score and a mismatch on one of them changes the report’s standing.

Phase 2 — Source hierarchy

Only a source the reader could open verifies a claim. Rank what you use, and record the tier in the ledger:

Prefer the most specific location: Item and Note number, statement line, table, page. “The 10-K” is a document, not a citation.

Retrieving a Tier-1 source without an API key. When the user grants permission to retrieve and the host can fetch URLs, go straight to SEC EDGAR rather than a summary site: resolve the CIK from https://www.sec.gov/files/company_tickers.json (zero-pad cik_str to 10 digits); list filings from https://data.sec.gov/submissions/CIK##########.json, where filings.recent.form / filingDate / reportDate / accessionNumber / primaryDocument line up by index (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, DEF 14A, 4 for insider transactions — Form 4s are filed under the issuer’s CIK as well as the insider’s — and 20-F / 6-K for foreign issuers); open the document at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/<CIK without leading zeros>/<accession without dashes>/<primaryDocument>; and cross-check statement figures against the tagged facts at https://data.sec.gov/api/xbrl/companyfacts/CIK##########.json. Send an identifying User-Agent and stay under 10 requests per second. Record Retrieval: web/tool retrieval, the accession number and the filing date. Institutional holdings are the exception to the issuer-CIK route: Form 13F-HR is filed by the investment manager, so it never appears under the target company’s CIK. Resolve the manager (from the claim: “Vanguard holds 8.9%”) to its CIK, list its 13F-HR filings, and verify the position in the information table by the target’s CUSIP — or use EDGAR full-text search (https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/q=%22<company or CUSIP>%22&forms=13F-HR) to find which managers report the security. A 13F verifies one manager’s position at one quarter-end; an aggregate “institutional ownership %” is a secondary-source figure and is marked ✅ (secondary) at best. If the host cannot fetch, ask the user to paste the document — or to run node scripts/fetch-edgar.js <TICKER> --form 10-K / node scripts/fetch-fundamentals.js <TICKER> from the InvestSkill repository and paste the output (Retrieval: pasted by user). A source that could not be retrieved leaves its claims ❓; it is never filled from memory.

Phase 3 — Verify each claim

For each ledger row, locate the figure in the source, compare, and assign one verdict:

A qualitative claim is judged only on whether the evidence the report cites for it holds; it is never ✅ on its own.

Phase 4 — Recompute every derived figure

Never accept a derived number by matching it to a secondary source that may have made the same mistake. Rebuild it from verified inputs and show the work:

Free cash flow      = OCF − capex                          1,240 − 310            = 930   ✓ report 930
Gross margin        = gross profit ÷ revenue               3,550 ÷ 6,120          = 58.0% ✓ report 58%
Revenue growth      = rev / prior rev − 1                  6,120 ÷ 5,100 − 1      = 20.0% ✓
Net debt            = total debt − cash                    800 − 1,650            = −850  (net cash) ✓
Market cap          = price × shares outstanding           48.20 × 412            = 19,858   (shares outstanding at the price date — not the diluted count used for EPS)
Enterprise value    = market cap + debt − cash             19,858 + 800 − 1,650   = 19,008
P/E (trailing)      = price ÷ diluted EPS                  48.20 ÷ 1.99           = 24.2× ✓ report "24× forward" ✗ — trailing, not forward
FCF yield           = FCF ÷ market cap                     930 ÷ 19,858           = 4.7%
Payout (FCF basis)  = dividends paid ÷ FCF                 165 ÷ 930              = 17.7%

Standard checks: FCF, margins, growth rates, per-share figures (which share count?), P/E · P/S · EV/EBITDA · P/FCF (trailing vs. forward, and whose estimate), net debt and EV, payout and yield, ROE / ROIC (state the denominator), any score or weighted composite in the report (do the weights sum to 100%? does the weighted sum match?). Where the report’s definition is ambiguous, say so rather than picking one silently.

Phase 5 — Consistency and honesty of the report itself

• Numbers vs. narrative — does the text say what the tables say? (“margins expanding” next to a table where they fell)
• Internal contradictions — the same figure quoted two ways in two sections.
• Signal vs. score — the signal box’s Score must sit in the band its Signal implies (≥ 6.0 BULLISH · 4.0–5.9 NEUTRAL · < 4.0 BEARISH); a mismatch is a red flag, not a rounding issue.
• The report’s Data & Sources header vs. what was verifiable — a header claiming Retrieval: web/tool retrieval · Confidence: HIGH over a report whose figures cannot be traced is itself a finding. Quote the header and state whether the verification supports it.
• Fabricated or unopenable citations in the report — a reference that does not exist, or a page/Item that does not contain the figure, is the most serious finding this skill can make. Say so plainly.

Phase 6 — Re-issue the report with citations

Produce the corrected copy (or the diff, if asked):

• Every ✅ figure gets an inline citation [n]; every 🔁 agrees figure gets the citation of its inputs plus (recomputed).
• Every ⚠️ figure is corrected in place, with the original struck through: $5.9B $6.12B [1] — and a one-line note on the cause. Never silently change a number.
• Every ❓ figure is marked [?] and left as written. Every 🕒 figure keeps its citation and gains (as of <date>; current: <value> [m]).
• Qualitative claims whose evidence failed are marked [unsupported].
• A References section closes the report:

## References
[1] Zephyr Robotics Inc., Form 10-K for FY ended 2026-03-31 — Item 8, Consolidated Statements of Operations, p. 54 (SEC EDGAR, accession 0000000000-26-000000; retrieved 2026-06-30)
[2] Same filing — Item 8, Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, p. 58
[3] Zephyr Robotics Q4 FY2026 earnings release, 2026-05-14 — segment table (company IR)
[4] Form 4, filed 2026-05-19 — CFO open-market purchase (SEC EDGAR)
[5] User-supplied: price and shares outstanding as of 2026-06-30 close (pasted by user; not independently verified)

Each reference names the document, the exact location, the as-of or filing date, and how it was retrieved. If the environment cannot produce a URL or accession number, say so rather than inventing one.

Phase 7 — Verification Score (0–10)

The headline number measures how much of the report is demonstrably true, not whether the report’s conclusion is right.

Hard caps (state any that fires): a signal-driving ⚠️ or 🔁 disagrees with delta > 5% → max 4.0 · more than half the claims ❓ → max 5.0 · the report’s own Data & Sources header overstates its retrieval or confidence → max 6.0 · any fabricated or unopenable citation found in the report → 0.0. Always print a Caps fired: line under the score (none, or the list) so a capped 4.0 is never mistaken for an earned 4.0 — a report whose score was capped by a signal-driving mismatch is a failed verification regardless of the number.

Map onto the standard bands: ≥ 6.0 the report’s inputs are sound (BULLISH on the report) · 4.0–5.9 usable with the listed corrections (NEUTRAL) · < 4.0 do not rely on it — re-run the analysis with verified inputs (BEARISH). Hand the score and the ledger to result-validator, whose Data Quality dimension should not exceed what this score supports.

4. Output Format

1. Data & Sources header — the sources used to verify, with retrieval path
2. Verification summary — one line: N claims · V verified · R recomputed (r agree) · M mismatch · U unverifiable · S stale · Verification Score X.X · Caps fired: none | <list>
3. Signal-driving claims first — the 3–5 that matter, each with verdict, source, and delta
4. Claim ledger — the full table from Phase 1 with verdict, source tier, location, as-of
5. Mismatches in detail — original · source value · delta · likely cause · what the corrected figure does to the report’s conclusion
6. Recomputation table — Phase 4, arithmetic shown
7. Report consistency findings — Phase 5, including the judgment on the report’s own header
8. Corrected report with citations (or --diff output) and the References section
9. Thesis Invalidation — what would change these verdicts (below)
10. Investment Signal block — mirrors the report’s signal with the verification verdict attached (below)

Example

User: [pastes a stock-eval output on ZEPH that concludes BULLISH 7.4 / 10] Verify every number
      and add sources. Here is the FY2026 10-K excerpt and the Q4 release. [pasted]

The assistant lists 23 claims, flags 5 as signal-driving (revenue growth, gross margin, FCF,
net cash, forward P/E). Verifies 17 against the 10-K and the release with Item/statement/page
locations; recomputes 6 derived figures — all agree except one: the report's "24× forward P/E"
is 48.20 ÷ 1.99, i.e. the *trailing* multiple on FY2026 diluted EPS; no forward estimate is
cited, so the claim becomes ⚠️ MISMATCH (label) with the corrected wording "24.2× trailing";
consensus forward EPS would be needed for the forward figure → ❓ until supplied. Two claims
are 🕒 STALE: the price and market cap are from a date 40 days before the report. One
qualitative claim ("dominant share of warehouse robotics") cites no evidence → [unsupported].
The report's own header said "Retrieval: web/tool retrieval · Confidence: HIGH"; 17/23 verified
supports MEDIUM, so that is noted. No fabricated citations. Verification Score 6.8 — the report's
inputs are sound; the signal stands with the valuation sentence corrected. Emits the corrected
report with [1]–[9] inline and a References section, and hands the ledger to result-validator.

Notes

• Run it before result-validator, not instead of it. This skill checks the inputs; the validator checks the reasoning built on them. The validator’s Data Quality score should never exceed what the Verification Score supports.
• Every InvestSkill report is a candidate, but so is anything else the user brings — a broker note, a newsletter, a spreadsheet, a screenshot transcribed to text. The ledger discipline is the same.
• Unverifiable is not false. The corrected copy must never read as if a ❓ claim were refuted. The honest output for a claim without a source is the claim, unchanged, with [?].
• Fiscal calendars cause most false mismatches. Establish the fiscal year end and the period each table covers before comparing anything.
• Do not fabricate a reference to fill a gap. No accession number, page, or URL that was not actually seen. If the environment cannot retrieve, ask the user to paste.
• Pairs with: result-validator (consumes the score), learning-coach (explains the ledger to a beginner), 10k-digest and financial-report-analyst (produce well-cited inputs in the first place), full-report (run this on the composite before shipping it), thesis-tracker (verify the KPI values before recording them at a check).

Thesis Invalidation

After delivering the analysis signal, specify what would reverse it:

If signal is BULLISH (the report’s inputs verified) — the verdicts break if:

• A new filing restates a figure the report relied on (an 8-K or an amended 10-K/A) — every ✅ on that figure becomes 🕒 until re-checked
• A signal-driving figure that was verified at Tier 2 (secondary) is later contradicted by the primary document
• The market-data as-of dates pass 90 days — verified prices become stale prices, and the valuation claims built on them lose their ✅

If signal is BEARISH (the report’s inputs did not verify) — the verdicts break if:

• The user supplies the source that turns the ❓ claims into ✅ — the ledger is re-run, not amended by hand
• A mismatch is traced to a period or definition difference the report actually disclosed elsewhere (then it is a labelling issue, not a wrong number — downgrade to a note)
• The report is re-issued by its author with the corrected figures, in which case fact-check the new version, not the old

Re-run this analysis when:

• [ ] The company files its next 10-Q / 10-K, or any 8-K restating prior figures
• [ ] The report is edited or re-generated
• [ ] 90 days pass on any market-data claim
• [ ] Before the report is shared, published, or used to size a position
• [ ] result-validator scores Data Quality above what the ledger supports

Standard Signal Output

This skill does not form a view on the stock. Score is always the Verification Score, and Confidence is capped at the tier it supports (≥ 8.0 HIGH · 6.0–7.9 MEDIUM · < 6.0 LOW). The other fields depend on the outcome:

• Verification passed (Score ≥ 4.0 and no signal-driving cap fired — Caps fired: none, or only the coverage / header caps): Signal, Horizon, Action, and Conviction mirror the verified report’s own, and a line under the box states Mirrors the report's signal — quoted, not re-derived. If a signal-driving claim mismatched by more than 5%, add Signal not supported at stated confidence — re-run the analysis with verified inputs.
• Verification failed (Score < 4.0, or the signal-driving mismatch cap fired — even if the capped score reads exactly 4.0 — or a fabricated citation → 0): the box does not carry the report’s Signal or Action forward — an unsupported BUY must not survive into the verification result. Fill Signal: NEUTRAL · Action: HOLD · Conviction: WEAK · Confidence: LOW, and under the box write Verification failed — the report's own signal (BULLISH / BUY, quoted) is not supported by its inputs; do not act on it.
• For a report with no signal block, fill Signal / Action / Conviction with n/a.

All analysis concludes with this standardized block:

╔══════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║              INVESTMENT SIGNAL               ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Signal:      BULLISH / NEUTRAL / BEARISH     ║
║ Confidence:  HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW             ║
║ Horizon:     SHORT / MEDIUM / LONG-TERM      ║
║ Score:       X.X / 10                        ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Action:      BUY / HOLD / SELL               ║
║ Conviction:  STRONG / MODERATE / WEAK        ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════╝

Score Guide: 8.0–10.0 Strongly Bullish | 6.0–7.9 Moderately Bullish | 4.0–5.9 Neutral | 2.0–3.9 Moderately Bearish | 0.0–1.9 Strongly Bearish Confidence: HIGH (strong data, clear signals) | MEDIUM (mixed signals) | LOW (limited data, conflicting signals) Horizon: SHORT-TERM (1 week–3 months) | MEDIUM-TERM (3 months–1 year) | LONG-TERM (1+ years)

Note: The Score above is the Verification Score — how much of the report is demonstrably true — mapped onto the standard scale for cross-skill comparability. When verification passes, Signal, Horizon, Action, and Conviction are the verified report’s own, quoted unchanged; when it fails, they are replaced by NEUTRAL / HOLD / WEAK so that no unsupported call is carried forward.

Disclaimer: Educational analysis only. Not financial advice. Verification is limited to the sources available at run time; an unverifiable claim is neither confirmed nor refuted.